[Silencer]

Uhm, CI, mind elaborating on, or removing that comment? It is, at the moment, needlessly personal, and would perhaps benefit from more development....

[Cold Iron]

Apologies, elaboration complete.

[Silencer]

Cheers, much better.

[Use Of Weapons]

I think the refutation linked at the top of the article posted above pretty much encapsulates my response.

Perhaps the fundamental difference between the religious mind and the scientific one is that, where the former encounters a gap in knowledge, they need to fill it with something, and that something often ends up being God. When the latter encounters the same gap, they want to remove the gap. Which is not the same thing as filling it.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on Aug 25 2009, 08:40 AM, said:

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on Aug 25 2009, 04:36 PM, said:

What neither side seems to possess, though, is the ability to be flexible, to accommodate modern beliefs or accept that, at this point, there really is no right or wrong (I'm talking about the creation/evolution debate here, not science in general).

I hate Dawkins but it's people like you who have created him.

ETA: Allow me to elaborate. Dawkins is a militant atheist. He wants to wipe out religion. This imo is retarded, as I place high value in religion. However, it is otherwise sane and rational people who make ridiculous allowances, just like mts has done, for the religious who have inflamed him. Scientists need to be flexible about theoretical nuances and details. To use the current example, the mechanics of evolution is a highly discussed and flexible field. The suggestion that scientists need to be flexible in allowing for the belief that evolution never happened is precisely the kind of irrational behaviour that has people like Dawkins doing outrageous things like putting signs on buses.

Well, as my little scenes a couple of posts ago show, I certainly agree that religious people don't need to nitpick and contradict every little thing science comes up with. IMO people with faith need to keep in mind that faith doesn't give much answers about the visible world, in fact it's not the agenda of faith. Science on the other hand can give us answers and build questions that this world needs. In those instances where science and faith contradicts each other, you have only three options - wait faithfully until science has decided it was wrong, let your faith change, or ignore it.
I would say that scientists that get upset by religion should follow the same basic rules - either be patient with religious people, or let science has it course and change from the presented criticism, or ignore them.
A prefect example is the pointed out belief that evolution never happened. I would say that even the most stubborn religious person would have to agree that micro evolution exists - but he or she would still say that macro evolution didn't happen. IN this instance, with something that happened so long ago, it's only logical for most believers to not be so trusting in science, but let faith overrule scientific agenda. Mostly because evolution doesn't give you any answers, only more questions. Evolution is a difficult concept that varies depending who you talk to - and all religious people don't discard all evolution. But again science is science, and we can all help it evolve and get better.

jitsukerr, on Aug 25 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

I think the refutation linked at the top of the article posted above pretty much encapsulates my response.

Perhaps the fundamental difference between the religious mind and the scientific one is that, where the former encounters a gap in knowledge, they need to fill it with something, and that something often ends up being God. When the latter encounters the same gap, they want to remove the gap. Which is not the same thing as filling it.

Please don't make any generalizations about 'religious minds'. As I have said countless times, having a faith doesn't make you stupid by default, you can still think for yourself, and indeed incorporate science into your worldview. Precious little science contradict faith, and maybe not the little stuff either, in the end.

[stone monkey]

The micre/macro evolution distinction thing is one I personally find hilarious because it was manufactured for the sole purpose of giving an excuse to those who wish to object to the idea of evolution without sounding insane.

The idea that lots of microevolution = macroevolution seems to offend these people for some reason. Primarily, it seems, because this requires geological time which is something else they would seem to object to...

I would disagree that evolution is a difficult concept, which I suspect is one reason why certain religious groups object to it. It's a fairly easy concept to explain to anyone with even half a brain; which means it's not scary elitist science at all. Which means there are no barriers to people making up their own minds about it. Which, if you're the type to think others are supposed to believe things without question, is the last thing you want them doing...

[Use Of Weapons]

Gem Windcaster, on Aug 25 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

Please don't make any generalizations about 'religious minds'. As I have said countless times, having a faith doesn't make you stupid by default, you can still think for yourself, and indeed incorporate science into your worldview. Precious little science contradict faith, and maybe not the little stuff either, in the end.

Why should I not generalise about religious minds? I never equated the possession of such a mind to stupidity. Thus, why you should take offence is a mystery to me. It seems clear to me that persons of a religious bent must share some faculty that permits them their faith, whatever that faculty may be.

Gem Windcaster, on Aug 25 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

I would say that scientists that get upset by religion should follow the same basic rules - either be patient with religious people, or let science has it course and change from the presented criticism, or ignore them.

Unfortunately, being patient is not a moral choice, if it means one must, by doing so, ignore the problems thereby created.

[councilor]

this is the simple truth - whatever science comes up with in terms of evolution, the card that gets played is: what about before that?

[stone monkey]

That's an easy one; evolution starts with the first living thing (however you define what that actually was, of course, is another story) Before that we're talking about abiogenesis, which is an entirely different kettle of fish...

[Cougar]

stone monkey, on Aug 25 2009, 05:15 PM, said:

That's an easy one; evolution starts with the first living thing (however you define what that actually was, of course, is another story) Before that we're talking about abiogenesis, which is an entirely different kettle of fish...

Fish? Prokarytoes surely.

[caladanbrood]

jitsukerr, on Aug 25 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

Perhaps the fundamental difference between the religious mind and the scientific one is that, where the former encounters a gap in knowledge, they need to fill it with something, and that something often ends up being God. When the latter encounters the same gap, they want to remove the gap. Which is not the same thing as filling it.

The problem here is the main reason why these sorts of aruments never work. You are assuming a distinction between religious people and scientific people. As assumptions go, this one is, quite frankly, invalid. I have my own, rather twisted faith, and I did an Engineering Degree. Clearly I have the capacity for both... hence the distinction is meaningless.

[stone monkey]

Cougar, on Aug 25 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

Fish? Prokarytoes surely.

Eukaryotes, actually... Maybe I should have said "A different pool of warm chemicals..."

Anyway, on topic. Agreeing with Brood is particularly distressing for me, but in this case he's actually right... (Oh my! Did I just say that?)

It is possible to do both; being Catholic they may be the wrong kind of Christian for some, but there have been a fair number of Jesuit scientists. Doing science is straightforward enough (ignoring the actual difficulties of accomplishing the work, that is...) but the compartmentalisation required for separating the faith based mindset from the evidence based mindset is going to be difficult, but not impossible; cognitive dissonance would, I expect, become something of a hazard when working in particular fields.

[Cougar]

stone monkey, on Aug 25 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

Cougar, on Aug 25 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

Fish? Prokarytoes surely.

Eukaryotes, actually... .

Oh rly?

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on Aug 25 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

The micre/macro evolution distinction thing is one I personally find hilarious because it was manufactured for the sole purpose of giving an excuse to those who wish to object to the idea of evolution without sounding insane.

Really? I had no idea. You will forgive me if I don't believe the distinction has merit even if that is so. Although their distinction might not be my distinction.

stone monkey, on Aug 25 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

The idea that lots of microevolution = macroevolution seems to offend these people for some reason. Primarily, it seems, because this requires geological time which is something else they would seem to object to...

Well I can't speak for "these people" obviously, only for myself, but it seems to me macro evolution and micro evolution are very different both in scope and complication. As for geological time, there must be many different possible versions that include both the theory of evolution and the absence of it. I for instance, have no trouble believing there were creatures here on Earth before humanity, or even the current biological Earth.

stone monkey, on Aug 25 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

I would disagree that evolution is a difficult concept, which I suspect is one reason why certain religious groups object to it. It's a fairly easy concept to explain to anyone with even half a brain; which means it's not scary elitist science at all. Which means there are no barriers to people making up their own minds about it. Which, if you're the type to think others are supposed to believe things without question, is the last thing you want them doing...

'Difficult' was a bad choice of word - complicated and diverse is more what I meant. It might not be hard to understand, but it's a very single minded concept. Funny that you say religious people think others should believe in things without question - not that I don't agree with you that some do that - however it is still hilarious, since you would group together the people that don't accept evolution without question, and then make statements about them.

@ jitsukerr: The fact that you think that I meant patience in terms of moral choice, and not the better choice by its own merit, shows why I was somewhat concerned by your generalization of 'religious minds'. People with faith has nothing else in common than they are human. I strongly object to any effort to make people with faith into grouping of special people. The idea of that is indeed insulting.
Also: what brood said.

[stone monkey]

Gem Windcaster, on Aug 25 2009, 07:58 PM, said:

Well I can't speak for "these people" obviously, only for myself, but it seems to me macro evolution and micro evolution are very different both in scope and complication. As for geological time, there must be many different possible versions that include both the theory of evolution and the absence of it. I for instance, have no trouble believing there were creatures here on Earth before humanity, or even the current biological Earth.

Er... No. Unless you're talking saltation, which is a very different concept, they aren't different at all. The key concept is that a big change in a population over geological time occurs because of lots of very small ones in that population occur each generation some of which are selected for depending on environment. Pretty straightforward, unless one chooses, for whatever reason to, to misunderstand.

Quote

'Difficult' was a bad choice of word - complicated and diverse is more what I meant. It might not be hard to understand, but it's a very single minded concept. Funny that you say religious people think others should believe in things without question - not that I don't agree with you that some do that - however it is still hilarious, since you would group together the people that don't accept evolution without question, and then make statements about them.

Complicated and diverse could quite easily apply to the religiously motivated arguments. And, as careful readers may have noticed (yeah, passive/aggressive, I know... ), the particular statement you object to was prefaced with the phrase "some religious groups..." If you want to include yourself in that, go ahead... Caps fitting etc. My point being that "God did it." can simply serve as a way of stopping all further questions on the subject. Which those who so wish are probably perfectly happy about.


Cougar - I thought you were referring to the fish...

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 25 August 2009 - 07:45 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on Aug 25 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Aug 25 2009, 07:58 PM, said:

Well I can't speak for "these people" obviously, only for myself, but it seems to me macro evolution and micro evolution are very different both in scope and complication. As for geological time, there must be many different possible versions that include both the theory of evolution and the absence of it. I for instance, have no trouble believing there were creatures here on Earth before humanity, or even the current biological Earth.

Er... No. Unless you're talking saltation, which is a very different concept, they aren't different at all. The key concept is that a big change in a population over geological time occurs because of lots of very small ones in that population occur each generation some of which are selected for depending on environment. Pretty straightforward, unless one chooses, for whatever reason to, to misunderstand.

You misunderstand me. I am saying that the process of small changes are very different from bigger changes, in scope and complication. That big changes occur is pretty straightforward, I agree, also that small changes happen. It's the causality that is the issue. I am not saying that as theory it is not valid, but my issue is the idea that it is the only possible theory. And please don't insult me by saying it is because I have faith. I'm pretty sure I would feel the same if I didn't believe. You see, I don't believe without question - quite the opposite - and I am always critical about my own perceptions. Would you please get out your head of the sand, and try to see what I am actually saying, without involving my faith - it has nothing to do with the validity of my argument.

stone monkey, on Aug 25 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

Quote

'Difficult' was a bad choice of word - complicated and diverse is more what I meant. It might not be hard to understand, but it's a very single minded concept. Funny that you say religious people think others should believe in things without question - not that I don't agree with you that some do that - however it is still hilarious, since you would group together the people that don't accept evolution without question, and then make statements about them.

Complicated and diverse could quite easily apply to the religiously motivated arguments. And, as careful readers may have noticed (yeah, passive/aggressive, I know... ), the particular statement you object to was prefaced with the phrase "some religious groups..." If you want to include yourself in that, go ahead... Caps fitting etc. My point being that "God did it." can simply serve as a way of stopping all further questions on the subject. Which those who so wish are probably perfectly happy about.

No I don't include myself in those religious groups - that much should be obvious by now. As motivations, what are they to you, if the arguments are sound? Does it really matter that much to you who came up with a certain argument, and why? As long as it holds water, why should it matter?

I agree that 'god did it' could theoretically stop all discussion - but I have never proposed that it should, and in case you haven't noticed, it's me you're discussing with. I don't see why you still bring that up like it's some sort of argument.
All I can read into it is the "omg those guys are so stupid" sentiment that has been floating around here for quite some time now. Shouldn't we have gotten passed that by now?

[stone monkey]

And what I'm saying is that a lot of small changes add up to a big change. Cumulatively. Dead simple, is it not? If you're fine about the mechanism of small changes (which you state you are) then the accumulation of millions of them (or possibly bilions or trillions depending on generation length) over geological time eventually becoming equivalent to a much larger change in the original individuals' eventual descendants should be no stretch whatsover. Your dispute over causality would seem to be that this hasn't been observed in the field. There is a quite obvious answer to that...

Now I would disagree with your statement about faith and argue that you personally cannot know how you would feel and/or think if you didn't have your faith, because your faith is such a pivotal part of your being. From your own previous statements I would also argue that all of your thinking on this and I would expect other subjects is coloured by your faith, because your faith is such a large part of your life. How could it not be? This, very obviously, is your prerogative. What I do think is rather disingenuous of you is to make the assumption that I (I can't speak for others) am so utterly inexperienced in having to interact with people who have similar experiences of their faith, and I do know quite a few, as to not understand that I have to take that into account when discussing anything with you.

As for motivations; if the arguments were sound I wouldn't have to take them into account, but they're not, which leads me to question why someone would use those particular arguments.

Now, if you're going to continually use the same arguments and rationalisations that most people who share your avowed religious beliefs about this particular subject do, which you do, then it should come as no surprise that, from the evidence you abundantly supply, you get lumped in with them. You might say that your individual thinking is different to theirs; well, most people like to believe that their thinking is different to that of others, but the depressing truth is that the only people who are correct in this belief are either geniuses or insane. I think I can safely assume you're neither.

Now, some of the brighter people I've met have been commited believers, I was partially educated by Jesuits ffs!, so it's probably safe to assume that I don't regard all those with religious belief as idiots. Just mistaken, that's all.

Anyway, we're getting away from the subject. For the sake of argument, let's say that both you and I are wrong; evolution by natural selection didn't get living things into their present state over geological time and a deity didn't create them ex nihilo (or guide their evolution, if you would prefer) As you seem to be willing to accept geological time as a given (if not we'll have to discuss that), what would you suggest as a viable alternative that fits the evidence?

[Cold Iron]

stone monkey, on Aug 26 2009, 08:43 AM, said:

As for motivations; if the arguments were sound I wouldn't have to take them into account, but they're not, which leads me to question why someone would use those particular arguments.

Precisely.

stone monkey, on Aug 26 2009, 08:43 AM, said:

Now, some of the brighter people I've met have been commited believers, I was partially educated by Jesuits ffs!, so it's probably safe to assume that I don't regard all those with religious belief as idiots. Just mistaken, that's all.

As far as my knowledge of European history goes, it seems to have been the translations of the bible and subsequent reformation that has led to the dilemma of literalism. For me, people with religious beliefs are not necessarily mistaken, on the contrary religion can aid understanding of anthropology and sociology. The reformation led us out from under the Papal yoke, the belief that we can each access a path to god without a catholic minister acting as conduit is entrenched. We no longer have a need to exalt the bible as infallible in order to shake off a foreign power. Indeed it is the preaching of biblical literalism that seems to be a new method of control for those who wish to seize power.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 26 August 2009 - 01:03 AM

[Terez]

Cold Iron, on Aug 25 2009, 08:03 PM, said:

As far as my knowledge of European history goes, it seems to have been the translations of the bible and subsequent reformation that has led to the dilemma of literalism. For me, people with religious beliefs are not necessarily mistaken, on the contrary religion can aid understanding of anthropology and sociology. The reformation led us out from under the Papal yoke, the belief that we can each access a path to god without a catholic minister acting as conduit is entrenched. We no longer have a need to exalt the bible as infallible in order to shake off a foreign power. Indeed it is the preaching of biblical literalism that seems to be a new method of control for those who wish to seize power.

Well, it was the protestant reformation that led to the translations of the Bible, so there's a slight bit of a contradiction in your take on things here (accidental, I'm sure - you only implied the contradiction by suggesting that the Reformation freed us from Biblical literalism - quite the opposite). Because, indeed, the protestant reformation was the beginning of Biblical literalism - see the difference between Catholic and Protestant reactions to Copernicanism. The Pope blessed the theory and accepted it; several officials of the Catholic Church supported it; Copernicus was a cleric himself; Martin Luther, on the other hand, pointed out how it contradicted the Bible (and was therefore obviously untrue). During the Counter-Reformation (where the Catholic Church is struggling to regain adherents that defected to Protestantism), the Catholics began to oppose Copernicanism as well. But it was only because the Protestants' beliefs were so popular.

I made a post along those lines in the Genesis thread...

[Epiph]

An exerpt from Richard Dawkins new book The Greatest Show on Earth, about the positive evidence for evolution was published in the Times Online.

He may be a dick sometimes, but he sure can turn a phrase

Quote

From The Times
August 24, 2009
Creationists, now they’re coming for your children
People who reject the theory of evolution should be placed on a level with Holocaust deniers, argues an author in his controversial new book
Richard Dawkins

Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world — for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors. That’s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class’s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory. Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Romansh: all these languages and their constituent dialects sprang spontaneously and separately into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin.

Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rearguard defence of the proposition that the Romans existed at all: a defence against an exhibition of ignorant prejudice that would make you weep if you weren’t too busy fighting it.

If my fantasy of the Latin teacher seems too wayward, here’s a more realistic example. Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers. Unlike my hypothetical Rome-deniers, Holocaustdeniers really exist. They are vocal, superficially plausible and adept at seeming learned. They are supported by the president of at least one currently powerful state, and they include at least one bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.

Fashionably relativist intellectuals chime in to insist that there is no absolute truth: whether the Holocaust happened is a matter of personal belief; all points of view are equally valid and should be equally “respected”.

The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context — which means evolution; when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with loss of their jobs. At the very least their time is wasted at every turn. They are likely to receive menacing letters from parents and have to endure the sarcastic smirks and close-folded arms of brainwashed children. They are supplied with state-approved textbooks that have had the word “evolution” systematically expunged, or bowdlerized into “change over time”. Once, we were tempted to laugh this kind of thing off as a peculiarly American phenomenon. Teachers in Britain and Europe now face the same problems, partly because of American influence, but more significantly because of the growing Islamic presence in the classroom — abetted by the official commitment to “multiculturalism” and the terror of being thought racist.

It is frequently, and rightly, said that senior clergy and theologians have no problem with evolution and, in many cases, actively support scientists in this respect. This is often true, as I know from the agreeable experience of collaborating with the Bishop of Oxford, now Lord Harries, on two separate occasions. In 2004 we wrote a joint article in The Sunday Times whose concluding words were: “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact and, from a Christian perspective, one of the greatest of God’s works.” The last sentence was written by Richard Harries, but we agreed about all the rest of our article. Two years previously, Bishop Harries and I had organised a joint letter to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

[In the letter, eminent scientists and churchmen, including seven bishops, expressed concern over the teaching of evolution and their alarm at it being posed as a “faith position”at the Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead.] Bishop Harries and I organised this letter in a hurry. As far as I remember, the signatories to the letter constituted 100 per cent of those we approached. There was no disagreement either from scientists or from bishops.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has no problem with evolution, nor does the Pope (give or take the odd wobble over the precise palaeontological juncture when the human soul was injected), nor do educated priests and professors of theology. The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.

They may think God had a hand in starting the process off, and perhaps didn’t stay his hand in guiding its future progress. They probably think God cranked the Universe up in the first place, and solemnised its birth with a harmonious set of laws and physical constants calculated to fulfil some inscrutable purpose in which we were eventually to play a role.

But, grudgingly in some cases, happily in others, thoughtful and rational churchmen and women accept the evidence for evolution.

What we must not do is complacently assume that, because bishops and educated clergy accept evolution, so do their congregations. Alas there is ample evidence to the contrary from opinion polls. More than 40 per cent of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals, and think that we — and by implication all of life — were created by God within the last 10,000 years. The figure is not quite so high in Britain, but it is still worryingly large. And it should be as worrying to the churches as it is to scientists. This book is necessary. I shall be using the name “historydeniers” for those people who deny evolution: who believe the world’s age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years, and who believe humans walked with dinosaurs.

To repeat, they constitute more than 40 per cent of the American population. The equivalent figure is higher in some countries, lower in others, but 40 per cent is a good average and I shall from time to time refer to the history-deniers as the “40percenters”.

To return to the enlightened bishops and theologians, it would be nice if they’d put a bit more effort into combating the anti-scientific nonsense that they deplore. All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely “symbolic” meaning, perhaps something to do with “original sin”, or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody could be forgiven for feeling confused.

Think about it, Bishop. Be careful, Vicar. You are playing with dynamite, fooling around with a misunderstanding that’s waiting to happen — one might even say almost bound to happen if not forestalled. Shouldn’t you take greater care, when speaking in public, to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay? Lest ye fall into condemnation, shouldn’t you be going out of your way to counter that already extremely widespread popular misunderstanding and lend active and enthusiastic support to scientists and science teachers? The history-deniers themselves are among those who I am trying to reach. But, perhaps more importantly, I aspire to arm those who are not history-deniers but know some — perhaps members of their own family or church — and find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case.

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That 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. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

Why, then, do we speak of “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, thereby, it seems, giving spurious comfort to those of a creationist persuasion — the history-deniers, the 40-percenters — who think the word “theory” is a concession, handing them some kind of gift or victory? Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.

Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.

Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town,* some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.

We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.

The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.

Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.

*Not my favourite Yeats line, but apt in this case.

© Richard Dawkins 2009

Extracted from The Greatest Show on Earth, to be published by Bantam Press on September 10 at £20. To buy it for £18 contact 0845 2712134 or timesonline.co.uk/booksfirst

This post has been edited by Epiph: 26 August 2009 - 03:27 AM