Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 External Links 6 Related claims 7 See Also 8 Acknowledgments

Claim

Evidence for evolution has not been observed. Claims that it has confuse observation with interpretation. What is observed has to be interpreted to fit the hypotheses.

Source

• Wallace, Timothy, 2000. Five major evolutionist misconceptions about evolution. [1]

Responses

1. In science, the word "evidence" usually only has meaning when related to a hypothesis. We compare data to the predictions of a hypothesis. If the data agrees with the predictions, it becomes evidence for the hypothesis, otherwise it becomes evidence against. In a way this might be referred to as interpreting evidence to fit the hypothesis, but the process isn't so subjective as the word "interpretation" implies. Furthermore, all of the sciences work in this manner, so criticizing evolution for it is hypocritical.
2. Science is about explaining the makeup of the natural world, not interpreting it to fit a preconceived belief. If a theory explains the natural world properly, interpretation is not an issue. Evolution does precisely that, and Creationism does not.
3. Evidence for evolution has been observed. This is a false accusation of a priorism.
4. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Slothful Induction (standard of evidence is ridiculously high)

External Links

• Mark Isaak's page for this claim [2]
• CreationWiki's comments [3]
• Wilkins, John, 1997. Evolution and philosophy: Is evolution science, and what does 'science' mean? [4]

Related claims

• Evolution is only a theory
• Evolution hasn't been proved
• Were you there?
• Evolutionists interpret evidence based on their preconceptions
• Ockham's Razor says simplest explanation (creation) is preferred

See Also

Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments

• 12.75.0.254
• TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa