re: #625 Cato

They didn’t say “evolution must be wrong because it caused us to predict wrongly.”

That would have been an immensely stupid thing for them to have said. If I make a speculation about the evolution of finch’s beaks which turns out to be wrong - and which is supplanted by another speculation that better fits the facts, would that be valid grounds for doubting evolution? Scientists are smart enough to be able to tell the difference between new evidence that causes a refinement to some detailed aspect of a theory and evidence that brings the entire theory as a whole into question, even if you are not.

One can talk of gradualism v. punctuated advance in evolution, but there is no framework to talk outside of evolution itself, and therein lies the issue.

All you are trying to do is validate the idea that there is a genuine scientific controversy over whether evolution is true or not, without giving anything close to a valid reason. There is no such controversy. Evolution is an established fact.