Does evolutionary theory have implications about the existence of supernatural entities? This question concerns the logical relationships that hold between the theory of evolution and different bits of metaphysics. There is a distinct question that I also want to address; it is epistemological in character. Does the evidence we have for evolutionary theory also provide evidence concerning the existence of supernatural entities? An affirmative answer to the logical question would entail an affirmative answer to the epistemological question if the principle in confirmation theory that Hempel (1965, p. 31) called the special consequence condition were true: The special consequence condition: If an observation report confirms a hypothesis H, then it also confirms every consequence of H. According to this principle, if evolutionary theory has metaphysical implications, then whatever confirms evolutionary theory also must confirm those metaphysical implications. But the special consequence is false. Here‟s a simple example that illustrates why. You are playing poker and would dearly like to know whether the card you are about to be dealt will be the Jack of Hearts. The dealer is a bit careless and so you catch a glimpse of the card on top of the deck before it is dealt to you. You see that it is red. The fact that it is red confirms the hypothesis that the card is the Jack of Hearts, and the hypothesis that it is the Jack of Hearts entails that the card will be a Jack. However, the fact that the card is red does not confirm the hypothesis that the card will be a Jack. 2 Bayesians gloss these facts by understanding confirmation in terms of probability raising: The Bayesian theory of confirmation: O confirms H if and only if Pr(H│O)> Pr(H). The general reason why Bayesianism is incompatible with the special consequence

about science, philosophers of science have traditionally formulated their theses in terms of elementary logic and elementary probability theory. They often point to real scientific examples without explaining them in detail and/or use artificial examples that fail to fit with intricacies of real examples. Sometimes their illustrative examples are chosen to fit their framework, rather than the science. Frequently these are non-scientific examples, which distances the discussion from its intended target. In the final analysis, philosophical discussions of explanation, confirmation, scientific realism, and the nature of theories are often too abstract, or too imprecise, or too disconnected with real science, to allow scientists to benefit from the discussion. This is a great loss for both parties. In my experience, working scientists are confronted with philosophical issues not only in their role as researchers, but also in their role as tertiary teachers of science. There are no institutionalized rewards to encourage scientists to develop answers to their own philosophical questions in ways that are well thought-out and publicly scrutinized. And there should be an intellectual division of labor; indeed, that is exactly why NSF supports the philosophy of science and other STS disciplines. On the other