Wow. Larry’s right: damn good article — and a lot of damn good comments, too. Didn’t read them all, but so far no crazies showing up to blither about transitional fossils, Darwin’s racism, etc, ad nauseum….
Restores my faith in Canadian good sense, just a bit.
I 'debated' a Young Earth Creationist last night (not really, it was more like sharing the stage with a delusional hobo). It was actually a really fun time, but in the Q&A I got all the standard fare: 2nd law of thermodynamics, no way to get new information… and 'I dont want my kids learning THEORIES in school, I want them learning FACTS!'
Great article, and I hope lots of people who need to read it, read it ;)
Oh, and I totally used things Ive learned on this blog, and Larrys, to talk about ‘junk DNA’. Thank you for that too!
Very well done. I'm glad that they were willing to publish your work. More scientists should be published in newspapers.
Though, I'm not sure that I quite understand the difference between "fact" and theory. Isn't the "fact" of common ancestry just a very, very well supported theory? Couldn't you just say that all of science is just well supported models piled on top of other well supported models? Even our own experiences could be said to just be extremely well supported theories.
Thank you Dr. Gregory, for your eloquent article explaining the difference between fact and theory. I have always been troubled by the argument that evolution is “just” a theory and your comments have put my mind at ease.