Letters to the Editor

In response to the May 1 letter of Mr. Kevin Folta, I would like to point out some problem areas in his argument.

First, Mr. Folta repeatedly claimed evolution is a fact. Is he correct? Well, yes and no. Folta failed to define his terms. The special theory of evolution, or microevolution, that is, change within species is true, as any animal breeder knows. The general theory of evolution, also called macroevolution, popularly expressed as the belief that all biological organisms are related by common ancestry, is an improvable hypothesis. The general theory of evolution is not testable, observable, nor falsifiable.

Second, Mr. Folta fails to understand the limits of scientific reasoning. Science utilizes inductive logic; therefore, science deals with probabilities only, albeit a scientific theory can have a very high degree of probability. Some scientists observe microevolution, change within species, and then, by means of inductive logic, postulate macroevolution as the inference to the best explanation. On the other side, design scientists observe order and postulate a designer as the inference to the best explanation. The point remains, however, that neither inference is provable based on an inductive inference.

Third, Mr. Folta suggests that real science operates on the basis of neutral observation with no metaphysical assumptions. In contrast, Michael Ruse, philosopher of science at FSU, acknowledges that the science enterprise contains numerous improvable metaphysical precommitments. For example, scientists assume the principle of uniformity of nature, that is, that the past resembles both the present and the future. In other words, scientists presuppose an unproved metaphysical principle in order to conduct science. The correct path is to acknowledge your presuppositions instead of sneaking them into your conclusion.