Just after my last post I ran across a link to the kind of book I was looking for when I settled for reading Dawkins’ God Delusion. A blog by a professor of biology at Gordon College has a link to a book review, The Evidence for Evolution in 100 Pages. As I was reading the review one paragraph jumped out at me because it lined up so well with what I had been thinking about that evening.
“Another potential shortcoming is Rogers’s treatment of creationists. Throughout the
book, Rogers uses creationist arguments as starting points in presenting new lines of evidence for evolution. Rogers is unnecessarily respectful of these creationist arguments, however. Although he does dispatch them, Rogers treats creationist arguments as worthy of discussion alongside the evidence for evolution. In a book aimed at presenting the evidence for a scientific theory, creationists or any other non-scientific group should be referenced as nothing more than politically or religiously motivated individuals with an ignorant axe to grind.”
The Italics are mine.
I had been thinking just how fiendishly clever (oh, lighten up) Evolutionary Doctrine is. Consider – if your worldview is limited to the Natural Universe, there is nothing outside of that system capable of causing life (nothing at all for that matter). The mere fact that we exist is, well, an existence proof of evolution. There simply is no other explanation. Not only that (and this is the fiendishly clever part) there is no reason to question that conclusion UNLESS you believe there may be something beyond the Natural Universe! If you ask the question you immediately expose yourself as one of the “politically or religiously motivated individuals with an ignorant axe to grind” that you most certainly are. You have to give the devil his due, its positively diabolical in its simplicity and effectiveness (I can’t help it, I like the joke).
Lest you confuse my obvious axe grinding as simple hysteria consider that according to Mr. Lennox (God’s Undertaker pg. 144) Barry Commoner observed “To some degree the theory [the genome accounts completely for an organism’s inherited characteristics] has been protected by a device more common to religion than science: dissent, or merely the discovery of a discordant fact is a punishable offence, a heresy that might easily lead to professional ostracism.”
Why would the established scientific community welcome disruptive information? Are today’s scientists less (more?) human than the scientists protecting the geocentric system when Galileo rocked the boat?
Anyway, I plan on getting a copy of “The Evidence for Evolution in 100 Pages”, because I presume the arguments are more convincing than the reviewer’s digest of them. For example the reviewer mentions that proof “whales evolved from land-based ruminants” is based on the fact they share “rare stretches of DNA that are unlikely to be shared by two species unless they have a common ancestor.” This is an argument based on the probability that the DNA sequences occur, which is obviously also and argument against evolution.
Not sure how you get to have it both ways, but then again I’m not a scientist and we already know I have an ignorant axe to grind.