I also think part of the problem is that creationists don't understand that evolution doesn't even attempt to provide all the answers. Evolution deals only with a limited scope, namely the development of different varieties of organisms. I can't count the number of times that creationists argue that evolution can't be true because "life can't arise from nonliving matter" or that they deride evolutionists for believing that "there was nothing and then that nothing exploded." Evolution doesn't attempt to answer the questions of the origin of the universe or even the origin of life. Even within its scope, however, scientists are more than willing to admit that they might be wrong. However, it seems that it is the details that are debatable currently. It seems unlikely that the overall idea of genetic variability leading to all the species of life will be found to be wrong. Creationists even seize upon the debate over the details, however, in a desparate attempt to show that evolution is in trouble.
From my vantage point, I'd say evolution *is* in trouble. Scientists are speaking out more and more about the limitations of the theory. What do you make of these two letters?
----------------
Letters to the Editor
May 25, 2005
Sir, Like many biologists, Richard Dawkins (Weekend Review, May 21) views the theory of intelligent design merely as an attack on evolution when, being essentially identical to the anthropic principle, it has far wider implications. Such ideas should not be dismissed simply because they have been hijacked by creationists. Despite Dawkins’s relentless propaganda, rational criticism of evolution and a distaste for biological reductionism do not equate to religious fundamentalism; bigotry should be resisted from whichever direction it comes.
Yours faithfully,
MILTON WAINWRIGHT, Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN. May 21.
-----------------------------------
From Professor Andy McIntosh
Sir, By building a straw man of creationists (supposedly) misquoting Darwin and Lewontin, Professor Dawkins labels the lot as “ignorant” and skirts the big issue — there is no hard evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.
Dawkins has long touted stories on how the eye and other organs came into being by supposed slow evolutionary processes, but there is no experimental evidence, even if one did accept the fossils as a record of such changes. Any serious thinker knows that the fossils of the “Cambrian Explosion” period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed — the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks.
The non-evolutionist side of the argument is growing not because of ignorance, but because of the rise of knowledge about the real facts of science without the fairytale additions of evolutionism. A growing number of academics on both sides of the Atlantic are attracted to the straightforward logic of scientific reasoning.
The logical, coded machinery of DNA and the information system it carries shout design to an unprejudiced mind. Dawkins’s defence is based not on scientific facts, but on ideology. Evolutionary thinking is teetering as a way of looking at the evidence, not because of some isolated problems here and there, but because the whole structure is scientifically wrong.
Yours faithfully,
ANDY C. McINTOSH, (Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory), Energy and Resources Research Institute, Houldsworth Building, University of Leeds, Clarendon Road, Leeds LS2 9JT. May 23.
-----------------
Stremba - literally EVERY DAY I read things from scientists telling me evolution has problems and alone can't account for the incredible complexity and biological systems on Earth and that ID should be given a fair shake. What am I and the general public to think? I mean, if it (evolution) were a SOLID theory, would we even be having this discussion?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
MM