Carl Cox <ctcox@windo.missouri.org>
As we live in this wonderful world, we plow and plant, raise animals, grow flowers. In past years most everyone was acquainted with growing things. We count on the stability of the species when we plant seeds, breed horses or dogs, produce hybrids. A recent quote from John Taylor posted here reflected that common experience of agrarian people that species do not change. The fossil record shows organisms that can be logically grouped, and ancestor and descendant organisms. The fossils can be considered to be snapshots of an ever changing aggregation of living things, which we call evolution, or as stable unchanging species. If you can dispose of G-d, then evolution *had* to occur, there is no other feasible alternative. As the fossil record has been filled in, scientists have been looking for evidence for either proposal. When multiple variations on the eohippus were unearthed, one of the Huxleys thought that the path to the equus had been paved. However, eohippus turned out to be a genetic bush rather than a ladder climbing to equus. So the search goes on for proof of any step in the fossil record. So far, proof has been eluding the seekers. If there was any proof, Dawkins and Gould would surely be aware of it. Any DNA evidence, or transitional species that constituted proof would be mentioned. If experts don't have proof, why do non-experts insist it is proven. Even the title of Dawkins book, 'Climbing Mount Improbable', indicates lack of proof. The name comes from the view of an eye or a wing being very difficult to explain by random chance mutations. Explaining evolution is like trying to climb a mountain with steep cliffs everywhere we look. He is thus saying that evolution seems to be very improbable. Darwin is quoted by Dawkins as having a queasy feeling about the proposed evolution of the eye, which his wife opposed. A noted scientist wrote to The Times regarding his doubts about evolution. Dawkins quoted his letter, but not his name so as 'to spare him embarrassment'. Dennett in 'Darwins Dangerous Idea' also talks about the difficulty with evolution, although he supports it. It is almost as if the recognized experts in evolution are saying 'I wish another theory would come along, because I am not really comfortable with this one'. One thing I note in all the 'good' books (as opposed to texts that spend 2 pages on evolution, or popular books that don't intend to go into detail) on evolution: if a process like the development of an eye or wing can be explained in a (almost) plausible way, the subsequent text acts like it has been proved. I feel that plausible should be considered a proposal, not a proof. When you try to find a proof, the answer is that these processes take millions of years, so the proposal IS proof. Dawkin's Mt Improbable is easy to climb. We just go to the hidden back side and find easy slopes. Any proposal that is possible takes you to the hidden side, and you are immediately on top of the mountain. Dawkins insists that evolution comes about by Random Mutation, proved by Mindless Natural Selection. Evolution can *never* go back, only forward or up hill, according to Dawkins. We know that Natural Selection is an essential part of the mechanism by which species survive, but I am not aware of any proof that natural selection is the mechanism that provides new species. Again, if there was any proof for that proposal, Dawkins, et al, would jump on the proof, and Mt Improbable would become an easily climbed foothill. When experts have their doubts, why do non-experts insist it has been proven? It comes down to faith. If your personal view of G-d is that he wouldn't bother with twiddling species, or that he set in place some scheme for evolution to happen on its own, or however you logically dispose of him, then your faith says that evolution has to have happened. If you are comfortable with a creator who carefully crafts every aspect of the earth, and 'watched until it obeyed', then creation is a viable alternative. Major references: Darwin, Charles; The Origin of Species, about 1859 Dawkins, Richard; Climbing Mount Improbable, 1996 (Note that science has been searching for proof for 137 years, without success.) Dennett, Daniel C; Darwins Dangerous Idea, 1995 His is an excellent history of evolution, with a 600 item bibliography, 'enough to get you started in a subject'. Wells, H. G., Huxley, Julian S. and Wells, G. P.; The Science of Life, 2 volumes, 1931 I am unable to find Gould's book in my disorganized library, but I think it was the 'Dinosaur' book.