Disclaimer: First of all, I would like to state that this is not a blanket criticism of everything about the evolution theory; only close.
Have a look at this video. This is Richard Dawkins speaking to creationists about the one thing that apparently refutes creationism.
I’m not a scientist, although I have studied a bit of science and have a MSc. degree. But my knowledge of science is just peanuts compared to what Mr. Dawkins possesses. Apart from the fact that Mr. Dawkins isn’t the most friendly and lovable man in the universe with the best social skills, he doesn’t seem to be very intelligent in applying the knowledge he has about science either. Neither is he using a good form of argument for presenting his conclusions. Knocking others down to make your point is considered in the study of logic as the worst form of argument and is usually employed by those who are insecure about their theory. He seems to have a lot of frustrations for not having this explanations being accepted by some creationists, and also very desperate to prove his point.
And it’s not just him either. I have met many evolution-believers in my course of travels, and they all have tried for one reason or another to force their views upon me. Or they try and put down my understanding of the world. I don’t see why they feel so insecure if they’re so convinced. Plus, I find them really closed-minded, just like Dawkins, who feels like if he’s too open minded his brains would fall out or something. Doesn’t matter how much you try and stay away from argument, they always want to get into one. So I decided to give my dear friends an opportunity and try and take up their method of argument, just for jokes :o)
Having said that, I don’t hate Mr. Dawkins or others who believe in the evolution theory. I just think their presentation is inappropriate, and they claim to know more than what they actually do.
There are mainly three forms of evidences according to the study of logic and rhetoric:
- Direct Perception: Evidence that can be reproduced for anyone to see directly
- Assumption based on available evidence: There are some factors that are available for observation, and the rest is just connecting dots based on what we think could have happened
- Hearing from authority: You haven’t proved something directly, but you hear from someone who knows and you accept as authority
A lot of evolution evidence seems to be a bit of everything. Here are some points:
- Most people are just hearing from the authority (Dawkins and others) without having proven it themselves. So there is a lot of faith involved in the process.
- Evidence cannot be reproduced for everyone to see. How much evidence do you think you could see if you wanted to right now? Please don’t say ‘Google’. Anyone can put any bogus thing on the internet – doesn’t mean it’s real.
- A lot of things in the theory is assumption and speculation. It’s like just because you find bones and fossils of creatures at different points in time, doesn’t mean they evolved from the previous one. One evidence cited is comparing gene codes and how our DNA is so similar to a chimpanzee. You can even go to ensembl.org and compare gene codes. I don’t need to compare a gene code with a platypus and then to a chimpanzee to see that there is more similarity with the chimp. I can do that just by looking at the animal. It doesn’t actually prove anything. Just having similar DNA doesn’t mean one came from the other.
- There is no observable evidence of the process occurring for change of species. There are changes within the same species due to gene mutation which we see everyday when reproduction happens, but none where species change. Oh yes, I know – it takes millions of years and our lifespan is too short to see it. Thanks :o) I totally understand how it’s a fair excuse and relieves one of a lot of burden to try and find an actual piece of evidence.
I can write on and on. But there are many books written on it so I’d rather you read those if you are interested. In fact, you can study the evolution theory starting with a perspective of your choice and arrive at the conclusion you prefer. It’s pretty open. Just try it!
Finally, I would say that I do apologize if you still feel I was too strong in my approach, but I’m sure Dawkins will forgive me :o)
