Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact... [It] didn't have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even
educated people, thought it wasn't. It didn't have to be true, but it is.
In my previous post discussing one of Dawkins' other books I wrote that I didn't really want to get into another debate about evolution vs. creationism. In reviewing his most recent book, it would be impossible and irresponsible for me to ignore this ongoing and often spiteful dialog.
The goal of this book, as the subtitle lets on, is for Dawkins to produce the 'Evidence for Evolution'. Although examples of and evidence for evolution is found throughout his other writing, he doesn't have a book that states 'these are the facts, and this is why evolution is true'. In this way The Greatest Show on Earth is a much needed book. Although another book (which Dawkins fully reccomends) that tackles this subject was released earlier this year in Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, I think it's neccesary for someone who is widely known (as much in our society that a scientist can be) to also tackle this subject. Too many people either believe or contradict evoluution without really knowing the facts. As Dawkins often points out, General scientific knowledge in our world is at an extremely depressing level given how much knowledge we as a species have. The purpose of this book is both to convince those on the fence that evolution is indeed true, and to arm those who believe in it against those who Dawkins calls 'history deniers'.
The first thing that Dawkins tackles in this book, and the one thing that I think is sorely needed in the current discussion about evolution, is the idea that it is 'only a theory'. He frames the argument so well in the book it would be hard for me to recapitulate his ideas. Basically, he points out that the only thing that can be proven are mathematical theorems. You often hear Darwinists sarcastically say 'well gravity is only a theory', and really it's true. You can prove that the square root of 2 is an irrational number, but you cannot prove that evolution is true. This does not mean that beyond any doubt it is true.
Dawkins uses the risky move of pointing out that many people in the world no longer believe the Holocaust occurred. He compares this case of 'ignoring' the facts to those who ignore the truth of evolution. It's a risky move because any time you use Hitler or the Holocaust in an argument, one typically losses all credibility. But here I think he makes a valid point. Even with the eye witnesses (which are becoming fewer and fewer these days) he claims that the evidence for evolution is just as strong as the evidence for the occurrence of the Holocaust. The point here is for him to point out what we consider to be 'evidence' and how we as humans make decisions about what happened in the past.
This brings up the next set of arguments that Dawkins tackles. He spends a fair amount of time on the fossil record, and whether or not it is 'incomplete'. Many people (not just creationists) believe that the fossil record is the biggest, and perhaps only, evidence for evolution. Thus they are taught to say 'the record is incomplete' thinking that if they point out areas where we don't have fossils of intermediate species evolution will be blown to shreds. There are two main points here that Dawkins points out. First, our record is more complete than we have any right ot expect. We have so many 'intermediates' and examples of not only human ancestors, but ancestors of many species that it is more than enough to conclude evolution's truth. Second, any time we find a new fossil, creationists then can say 'where is the intermediate between that and the one before'. As I've pointed out in my reivew for The Ancestor's tale, there are an infinate number of 'intermediates' between species. Placing everything in a neat and tidy box is a human way of thinking, and nature does not work this way.
Furthermore, Dawkins makes the argument that our evidence for evolution is so convincing that even if we did not have one fossil we would be just as confident in the truth of evolution by natural selection. Comparing scientists to detectives who have to figure out what happened inthe aftermath of a crime, Dawkins writes:
There is something else that creationists, and those who don't take the time to learn the subject often miss. They think that evolution is 'in the past' and something that has to be proven like a fact of history. The thing they miss is that evolution is happening all around us every day. Furthermore, as Dawkins writes:
One of the main arguments that is often used against 'Darwinists' is that they're just replacing one ideology with another. This argument is used by both those who are religous and obviously at odds with Darwinism, and by those who think that any kind of ideology is ridiculous and harmful. Furthermore, this argument is even extended to all of science, where they believe 'Religion' is just being replaced with 'Science' with those who believe acting just as blind and indoctrinated. I find this argument utterly ridiculous. Science is a way of thinking, not a set of beliefs. As Dawkins points out above, evolution didn't have to be true but all of our evidence points out that it is. If there were some, any, evidence that Darwinian Evolution wasn't true those of us who believe in it would have to abandon this idea and try to figure out how things really work. Those who believe in 'creationism' or any other religious belief will never change their indivdual beliefs. They are set in stone for all time, unable to be changed by even the most convincing mounds of evidence.
The goal of this book, as the subtitle lets on, is for Dawkins to produce the 'Evidence for Evolution'. Although examples of and evidence for evolution is found throughout his other writing, he doesn't have a book that states 'these are the facts, and this is why evolution is true'. In this way The Greatest Show on Earth is a much needed book. Although another book (which Dawkins fully reccomends) that tackles this subject was released earlier this year in Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, I think it's neccesary for someone who is widely known (as much in our society that a scientist can be) to also tackle this subject. Too many people either believe or contradict evoluution without really knowing the facts. As Dawkins often points out, General scientific knowledge in our world is at an extremely depressing level given how much knowledge we as a species have. The purpose of this book is both to convince those on the fence that evolution is indeed true, and to arm those who believe in it against those who Dawkins calls 'history deniers'.
The first thing that Dawkins tackles in this book, and the one thing that I think is sorely needed in the current discussion about evolution, is the idea that it is 'only a theory'. He frames the argument so well in the book it would be hard for me to recapitulate his ideas. Basically, he points out that the only thing that can be proven are mathematical theorems. You often hear Darwinists sarcastically say 'well gravity is only a theory', and really it's true. You can prove that the square root of 2 is an irrational number, but you cannot prove that evolution is true. This does not mean that beyond any doubt it is true.
Dawkins uses the risky move of pointing out that many people in the world no longer believe the Holocaust occurred. He compares this case of 'ignoring' the facts to those who ignore the truth of evolution. It's a risky move because any time you use Hitler or the Holocaust in an argument, one typically losses all credibility. But here I think he makes a valid point. Even with the eye witnesses (which are becoming fewer and fewer these days) he claims that the evidence for evolution is just as strong as the evidence for the occurrence of the Holocaust. The point here is for him to point out what we consider to be 'evidence' and how we as humans make decisions about what happened in the past.
This brings up the next set of arguments that Dawkins tackles. He spends a fair amount of time on the fossil record, and whether or not it is 'incomplete'. Many people (not just creationists) believe that the fossil record is the biggest, and perhaps only, evidence for evolution. Thus they are taught to say 'the record is incomplete' thinking that if they point out areas where we don't have fossils of intermediate species evolution will be blown to shreds. There are two main points here that Dawkins points out. First, our record is more complete than we have any right ot expect. We have so many 'intermediates' and examples of not only human ancestors, but ancestors of many species that it is more than enough to conclude evolution's truth. Second, any time we find a new fossil, creationists then can say 'where is the intermediate between that and the one before'. As I've pointed out in my reivew for The Ancestor's tale, there are an infinate number of 'intermediates' between species. Placing everything in a neat and tidy box is a human way of thinking, and nature does not work this way.
Furthermore, Dawkins makes the argument that our evidence for evolution is so convincing that even if we did not have one fossil we would be just as confident in the truth of evolution by natural selection. Comparing scientists to detectives who have to figure out what happened inthe aftermath of a crime, Dawkins writes:
The fossil record, like the spy camera in the murder story, is a bonus, something that we had no right ot expect as a matter of entitlement.
There is something else that creationists, and those who don't take the time to learn the subject often miss. They think that evolution is 'in the past' and something that has to be proven like a fact of history. The thing they miss is that evolution is happening all around us every day. Furthermore, as Dawkins writes:
there is more than enough evidence for the fact of evolution in the comparative study of modern species and their geographical distribution. We don't need fossils - the case for evolution is watertight without them; so it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as though they were evidence against evolution. We are, as I say, lucky to have fossils at all.
It is theses other pieces of evidence that I think make this book required reading for enlightened adults. Everyone knows what fossils are and how they work. But hardly anyone really understands the other pieces of evidence that are produced throughout this book. I won't really go into them here, because I think one really needs to sit down and read this book (or a book like it like Coyne's) to understand the evidence. The domestication of animals, our relationships to other creatures, geological features and countless other examples are used to show how everything in biology and life is driven by evolution and natural selection.
One of the main arguments that is often used against 'Darwinists' is that they're just replacing one ideology with another. This argument is used by both those who are religous and obviously at odds with Darwinism, and by those who think that any kind of ideology is ridiculous and harmful. Furthermore, this argument is even extended to all of science, where they believe 'Religion' is just being replaced with 'Science' with those who believe acting just as blind and indoctrinated. I find this argument utterly ridiculous. Science is a way of thinking, not a set of beliefs. As Dawkins points out above, evolution didn't have to be true but all of our evidence points out that it is. If there were some, any, evidence that Darwinian Evolution wasn't true those of us who believe in it would have to abandon this idea and try to figure out how things really work. Those who believe in 'creationism' or any other religious belief will never change their indivdual beliefs. They are set in stone for all time, unable to be changed by even the most convincing mounds of evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment