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.
All observation requires interpretation. Even something as seemingly
simple as seeing an object in front of you requires a great deal of
interpretation to determine what it is, what properties it exhibits,
how far away it is, and so forth (Sacks 1995). To dismiss absolutely
everything we know because it is interpretation would be ludicrous.
Most of the evidence of evolution is not the sort about which
interpretation is in question. The evidence consists of such things
as the following:
certain trilobite species are found in certain geological formations;
many more varieties of marsupials are found in Australia than
elsewhere;
bacteria in test tubes have been seen to change in certain ways over
time;
flies share some traits that other insects do not;
and millions of other such facts, none of which are in dispute.
The sort of interpretation to which creationists object is how all the
evidence fits together. They do not deny the evidence (not most of it,
anyway); they deny that it is evidence for evolution.
However, a fact gets to be considered evidence for a theory if it fits
that theory and does not fit or is not covered by competing theories.
(Ideally, the theory should predict the fact before the fact is known,
but that is not essential for the fact to be evidence.) The millions
of facts referred to above fit this criterion, so they qualify as
evidence for evolution.
The interpretation on which creationism depends, in contrast, is based
only on highly questionable and subjective ideas that do not fit
together into a coherent whole.
