I was hoping I’d hear from you on this topic goz. (I miss having a copy of the G2 in the toilet).

That’s a good article – a much more reasoned argument for faith than Dawkins argument against. And you hit that nail on the head; it is the insistence on one set of convictions that is wrong, not the convictions themselves. Irrespective of whether the ideology is Christian, Muslim, Darwinian, or whatever.

“Fundamentalism is as likely to be found in the qualitative conclusions of science as in religion.”

I disagree with his interpretation of memetics as implying the religious are ‘disease ridden’ though. He’s misunderstanding the metaphor.

Right, whatever. I suppose the thousands of peer-reviewed publications and the voluminous empirical evidence supporting evolution doesn’t exist either. It’s falsifiable, and it’s very obviously a scientific theory , and your misunderstanding of it is simply colossal.

Evolution is untestable

Lying is wrong even if you’re an atheist. Common descent, natural selection &c. have been tested innumerable times. E.g. all the evidence listed on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ implies testing. The nested hierarchies that have been found (and the convergence of these) are, in my opinion, the most important prediction of common descent with random mutations.

I’m a bit confused as to which part of evolution you have a problem with. You agree animals can adapt, and that we can observe these adaptations in the short term – what then is your problem with these adaptations adding up over the long term? Do you agree that there is a common descent of all life on Earth?

If you actually look at that page of ‘problems’ with evolution – you will not that very single ‘objection’ is a) made by creationists (not exactly known for their intellectual rigour) and b) has been met and demonstrated to be either sophistry or poor understanding of the material evidence (whether intential lying or merely confusion on the creatonists’ behalf is a common question). And indeed – if you actually follow some of the other links on that page you can see for yourself that this ‘evolution has never been seen’ nonsense is exactly that – a poor understanding of what evidence we have and what it signifies.

Just because some crazy says the ‘world is flat’ is not enough to start writing headlines saying ’shape of world – views differ!’ That’s not blinkered – that’s rational skepticism. You either go with the evidence or just admit you’re making unsuportable claims up out of thin air.

You clearly have a problem with the theory, as you stated it was ‘untestable’ and ‘not science.’ So which part of evolution do you claim to be ‘untestable’? And do you agree with common descent, or is that untestable too?

In answer to your question, yes, it is the macro process that is unprovable, and without that common descent cannot be accepted unquestionably.

I’m not saying that with the evidence we have common descent is not extremely likely, but I would assert that the fossil record is insufficient evidence to decide it conclusively.

To Ben, John, Sam et al, a “fact” is very different from a “theory”. The problem being highlighted by zenbullets is that the fact of change does NOT make the idea of evolution itself a fact. To give an example, man has for many centuries been selectively breeding various animal species for particular characteristics, we see quite dramatic change in the breeding lines (cf Irish Wolfhounds and Chihuahuas) but no genesis of a new species. The same goes for chooks, cattle, sheep, goats, etc. For some people the idea of evolution fits their interpretation of the facts more logically than the idea of God creating the universe and everything in it. But at the core, both are beliefs and whether anyone likes it or not, both require faith.

Keep in mind Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, which in this case, could be stated as “in any system of logic, there are always some fundamental statements that cannot be proved by the tenets of the logic system”. They have to be taken on faith or belief as correct.

In regard to the comment about looking at what the top people in science world say, all I can say is, you really need to look at history and you’ll understand the problem with that comment. An example is the current disagreements between string theorists and non-string theorists. People are people and will in many cases follow the party line if it has benefits for them, as has been demonstrated throughout recorded history.

Remember that science is a tool for understanding the natural universe around us – there are things that it cannot be effectively used for.

I have been trained in science and engineering and have worked in the computer industry for 25 – 30 years, I enjoy the interesting things that science can show. However, my perspective on the “theory of evolution” is that it is as much a religious system as the religious systems it opposes.

I appreciate where your father comes from in some ways, zenbullets. The interesting thing for me is that the techniques and study of different scientific disciplines has lead me to “reality of Jesus Christ(God)”, chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, astronomy and mathematics all highlight the understanding of how limited our knowledge of the universe really is.

Look at a simple thing like gravity, there is now a small number of researchers who are going back to some original ideas from the 18th and 19th centuries and are seeing it as a fourth order effect of the electromagnetic interaction of electrons and protons within the nuclei of atoms. Strings theorists look at it from the perspective of a very complicated interaction of a multi-dimensional tightly curved space. Which is it?

A wonderful quote that I keep to the forefront as much as I can is this – “What God the Father considers to be pure and genuine religion is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering and to keep oneself from being corrupted by the world.”

What scientific philosophy being promulgated by the likes of R. Dawkins and his ilk would ever come up with the above?

The one thing we all have have as people is to make choices in what we believe and what we do and to be responsible for those choices.

I loved your end quote of Dawkins! Hello, physician heal thyself! Ugh, but seriously the Dawkinites drift between the sophistry of ad hominem, special pleading and desperate projection. they have nothing else, just like the worst sort of religious types.

Thank you for the calm assessment of this weird, ubiquitous zealot. As an agnostic (regards both evolution and religion) this was the ACTUAL clear thinking I was looking for.

The lady doth protest too much.

[...] Okay, after the last atheist denier of evolution turned out to be a hoax, I’m just hoping that this one is the same. Zenbullets accuses Dawkins of giving atheists a bad name, and states: Richard Dawkins writes upon this subject in his most recent book, The God Delusion. He correctly points out that the human mind is vulnerable to certain types of memetic viruses, those that play on our fear of death, the unknown, and our arrogance as a species. Religions are the most sophisticated and resilient of these memes. But there is hypocrisy to his message, because while he writes eloquently of atheism, he doesn’t acknowledge that he has his own belief system, one that he clings to as desperately, and espouses as vocally, as any evangelical Christian.Richard Dawkins has been the loudest prophet of Darwinism the world has ever known. He is Saul level. He has been perhaps the most significant single influence in the current popularity of the Theory of Evolution since Darwin himself. He calls Evolution a science, but this is a common misconception. It is a faith. Eh? Please tell me this is a joke. And if it’s not, direct him to talk origins, pronto. [...]

[...] [...]