Evolution

[Martin Hash]

I 've been watching YouTube and reading books by celebrated atheist Richard Dawkins. Though I tend to have the same scientific predispositions, I think Mr. Dawkins is stretching his assault on superstition beyond reasonable and courteous societal boundaries. At one point in the video “The God Delusion,” Mr. Dawkins condemns a group of science teachers for not fervently denying their students any mystical beliefs. While I certainly agree that we should teach only science in schools, I agree with those teachers - their job is to teach science and it is not in their purview to be passing judgment on the (however fantastical) beliefs of others, nor to be kibitzing family values. Mr. Dawkins insists that evolution is “truth,” so it supersedes all other concerns. I ask him what makes truth per evolution more important than going to phony wars in Iraq? Why demand someone believe in evolution when we won't demand birth control in poor nations? If there is a priority list of things we are going to force people to believe - I want to help make up that list.

Also, Dr. Dawkins arguments seem only to be aimed at religion. To him evolution is singularly in conflict with belief in some kind of Supreme Being(s), however, there are at least 8 other theories (not counting "God") that could account for human creation:
1) You are all figments of my imagination (solipsism)
2) DNA on an asteroid
3) Parallel Dimensions
4) Reincarnation
5) Alternate Universes
6) Alien Visitors
7) Time Travel
8) Learned Inheritance (epigenetics)

All of these “explanations” have scientific papers written about them.

To begin: I DO believe in much of the THEORY of evolution. I have 3 doctorate: science, law & medicine, and agree that evolution is science while creationism is not, there still seems to be giant holes in the theory. Specifically, the calculations seem inadequate to me, especially coming from my extensive computer science background where I am not afraid of big numbers. In fact, I quite rely on big numbers so I fully understand what it means when Dr. Dawkins says there were 300,000 generations to get from that first inkling of "homo" to homo sapiens. There must have been myriad changes per generation, however there have been no changes to humans in 300 generations (as evidenced by genetic studies of the Similaun Man) - so making that the step size leaves only 1,000 iterations to get from protomen to us! What is the explanation for this? Obviously there are some essential questions to be answered for evolution to be more than a curious theory like the others I listed.

Evolution is science, Dr. Dawkins, but you are making it into a religion.

[Stephen mosier]

Martin, to say that evolution is science and creationism is not, is to over-generalize the issue. There may be some scientific support for the theory of evolution but there are also scientific reasons to question it. (The existence of irreducibly complex organs, to name just one, in addition to the one you raised.) On the other hand, the fact that the intelligent design hypothesis is also compatible with some religious beliefs does not in itself disqualify it from also having a basis in science. Indeed, there is much scientific data to suggest intelligent design.

If by “creationism” you are referring just to any one or more of the religious beliefs that teach creation, then by all means you are correct. Religion is not science. Neither is science religion (or at least, as you point out, it ought not to be). They each have their own sphere of importance in our lives—one asking “when, what and, how”--the other asking not only “when, what and how” but also “why”.

[Martin Hash]

Irreducible Complexity is a flawed argument because there is always a *chance" that an event occured, however unlikely. (Nothing is impossible - you can always come up with an outrageous explanation.) It's the odds that a sequence of events has occured in the correct order often defies believable, at least when bounded by the age of the universe.

The weaknesses of the "theory" of evolution are:
Too little time
Too little variation
Too few examples
Too little evidence
Too much complexity (why not simplier solutions?)
Inability to reproduce life
Why is evolution serial? (Concurrent timelines should be visible.)

[Stephen mosier]

Martin ,

I don’t think I said that irreducible complexity was a conclusive argument, but merely that it provides a scientific reason to question the theory of evolution. That it may be possible for such an event to occur does not diminish the fact that the very high improbability of such an event weakens the case for a theory which necessarily relies upon that event occurring not once, or even seldom, but with frequency. It indeed defies believability.

In my opinion a theory which requires the suspension of believe by its adherents , requires faith by them. That which requires faith as the basis of believability is more akin to religion than science.

When science produces conclusive evidence of evolution then evolution will be believable. In the meantime, I have no faith in it.

[Martin Hash]

Dr. David Berlinski Refutes Evolution in Under 5 Minutes

[Okeefenokee]

A large part of what was considered settled science went out the window when epigenetics was discovered, and that was only in the past couple of decades.

My take away is that it's still far from being gospel.