Make no bones about it...
The story continues...
I quickly forgot about the heart thumping episode though I was somewhat surprised that later in the evening when my new friends said I should have responded. But as I remember it all went quiet on the religion front for a while until, via a close friendship with one of the girls in the group, the subject of evolution came up.
As with most of us, ever since hearing about evolution it had been taught to me as fact, was assumed & presented as fact in the media, and I had never had any reason to question it. To me, it seemed plain and evident that it also meant there was no need for God in the explanation of how we came to be here. So began many pretty heated debates with this friend and others. As much as anything it was just a shock to find people who didn’t believe in it. But in the end I agreed to read a booklet called ‘Bone of Contention’ written by the mum of one of the friends in the group. The book basically argued against evolution in favour of creation. Then came an even bigger shock. I found myself agreeing with much of what was written.
Just as an aside, as it happens my mind hasn’t changed since then though evolution remains a contentious issue even amongst Christians. I’m not a militant creationist, and I know there are many Christians who argue that God used evolution etc. It’s a massive & complicated area and I’m no expert, and there are many non scientific factors involved in it, but I’ll leave it there for now.
So, reeling from that, I didn’t know where that left me. It didn’t mean I was suddenly a Christian, so the saga continues next time..
Martin, you mention the
Martin, you mention the contentious nature of evolution, but I do not think you are accepting in which spheres it is contentious, ie religious. Evolution is a scientific matter, and rejecting it amounts to rejecting the scientific method. Non-scientists must defer to experts on subjects which are outside of their knowledge, and this is a mistake many people make when considering their faith. Your belief in a deity should not interfere with your scientific understanding, though it will undoubtedly colour it all with a certain meaning that is simply not there for atheists.
I'd be interested to know of eminent non-religious figures who deny evolution. I'd also be interested in hearing the points 'Bone of Contention' made which struck you.
Sarah
Creation/evolution
As a resident living on the border of Corfe Mullen, I would like to try to redress the balance in this discussion on the creation/evolution debate. It is a huge subject, so I shall confine myself to consider briefly four of the areas where the theory of evolution conflicts with scientific observation.
Abiogenesis
It is impossible for inanimate matter spontaneously to change into a living organism: so there is no possible way for the process of evolution to have begun. No one has ever observed it taking place; no one has ever been able to explain how the many huge obstacles could be overcome; no one has ever been able even to begin to explain how any living thing could be simple enough to emerge from inanimate matter by random processes and yet be complex enough to be able to live and breed. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the DNA/RNA system found in all living things is too complex to have appeared in this way; and yet he also accepts that change to the way our DNA functions would be instantly fatal (The Greatest Show on Earth, pages 409, 416-418). So even if a simpler system could have appeared, there is no way it could evolve into what we see today. Abiogenesis is contrary to all the relevant laws of science.
Complexity: Specified and Irreducible
According to evolutionary theory, after the first living organism appeared from inanimate matter, it then became ever more complex as a result of mutation and natural selection, to produce all life forms seen on Earth since. This means the specified complexity of the genome had to increase over and over again (i.e. become larger with orderly information), billions of times. There is no natural process known to man capable of increasing the specified complexity of the genome. Natural selection can only shuffle pre-existing genetic code or eliminate parts of it. Mutation can only damage specified complexity. For Darwin’s theory of evolution to take place, specified complexity has to increase but there is no mechanism in existence that can do it. When Dawkins was asked to produce an example, he was unable to do so, and The Greatest Show, supposedly a book about the evidence for evolution, contains not one a single example either. To view the video clip of the question Dawkins could not answer and read further comment on his book, see my web site http://www.inthebeginning.org.uk/greatestshow.html
Only one example of irreducible complexity would be enough to destroy the theory of evolution: if any physical feature could not appear via a sequence of tiny steps, then evolution could not produce it. There is not merely one example: throughout all living things there are hundreds, probably thousands, and most likely millions of them. A simple example is the DNA/protein relationship. Without the coding for them in DNA, proteins could not exist. Without protein activity, DNA has no function. The two had to appear simultaneously in order to be selected for by natural selection.
The most well-known example is the flagellum, the response to which, from the evolutionary lobby, has been laughable. In a system of about 42 different parts, the type III secretory system’, with about 10 parts, is the only possible part-way stage they have been able to find (and even that comes with serious problems). With no other transitional stages that would be functional, there is no simple step-by-step build up to the secretory system’ followed by a further step-by-step development to the flagellum to enable natural selection to produce it. Furthermore, the order in which the flagellum is built is equally important, and evolutionists cannot even begin to explain how this could have evolved.
Natural Selection is not Evolution
Even Dawkins admits this! Quote: “Biologists often make the distinction between the fact of evolution… and the theory of what drives it (they usually mean natural selection).” (Greatest Show, page 17.) Saying, “Natural selection drives evolution, so when you see natural selection you are looking at evolution” is like saying, “Michael Schumacher drives a Formula One racing car, so when you see Michael Schumacher you are looking at a Formula One racing car!” And yet this is what evolutionists do over and over again.
Even though natural selection can produce a fairly large change in appearance, it can never produce a totally different kind of life form, because in order to do this novel genetic information has to appear in the DNA and there is no mechanism in existence able to create it. So we can observe fish that have lost their eyes, snakes that have lost their legs, beetles that have lost their wings, but no-one can show a specimen of an organ appearing in any species where it was not previously present. Therefore, millions of generations can pass, but dogs will remain dogs and cats will remain cats. This is scientifically observed both in malaria and E. coli, for example, where millions of generations have come and gone (far more generations and in far greater numbers than among the entire population of mammals that could ever have lived on Earth, even in evolutionist’s time-scales), but they are still 100% malaria and E. coli. The only change ever observed is that seen through natural selection in everything else: limited change for survival (e.g. the loss of ability to ingest substances that would destroy them) but nothing to enable a new life form to appear. If the specified complexity of the much smaller DNA of malaria and E. coli could not increase to turn them into something completely different after all these generations, then it certainly could not do so in the much larger DNA of mammals after fewer generations.
Junk DNA junk
For the last three or four decades evolutionists have been telling us that 95% of our DNA is junk and this is scientific evidence for evolution: the junk is supposed to be relics of our evolutionary past plus random change through mutation. A genuine scientific test is one capable of working two ways (i.e. falsifiable): if it works as the theory predicts then the theory is proven; if it does not the theory fails. So if the junk DNA theory is the scientific test evolutionists for so long have been telling us proves we evolved, then if our DNA can be shown not to be 95% junk, this proves we did not evolve. It is obvious logic – they can’t expect to have their cake and eat it!
On a regular basis, scientific research papers are now being published, showing that the so-called junk DNA does have a vital role in the cell. It is highly conserved – so there has been little or no random change through mutation, therefore demonstrating that natural selection is preserving it because it has purpose. Most of it is transcribed into RNA, which would be a huge waste of effort and resources that natural selection would eliminate if it really were junk. Additionally it has been observed regulating the production of protein in the cell.
All this being the case, the failure of the junk DNA theory proves evolution to be false. Or are evolutionists now going to change their mind and say it was not falsifiable scientific evidence after all?
The Common Ancestor
According to evolutionists, homo sapiens and chimps divided from a common ancestor around four million years ago, depending on who you ask – some might extend this to as much as ten million. In order to try to emphasise our close relationship, they have claimed in the past that up to 99% of our DNA is identical. However, since chimps’ DNA is over 12% larger than ours, it is obvious this cannot be the case! R J Britten, in 2002, said the difference was 5% counting indels, so let’s work with that. There are 3,164,700,000 base pairs in human DNA, so simple maths shows 158,235,000 had to change in order to produce the difference we can now observe. No matter how you wriggle and squirm, there is no way a change of this size could have taken place in the few million years claimed: either the number of transitional stages is far too great to have appeared in the time and there are far too many for each to be able to produce enough beneficial change to be favoured by natural selection, or the size of change for each of those stages is too large to be possible. Famous geneticist J.B.S. Haldane calculated that in 6 million years, only 1,000 mutations could become fixed in a population – far too few to do the job. For more detail on this see http://www.inthebeginning.org.uk/challenge.html
This is not a new problem, of course: but in the past evolutionists have tried to avoid it by using the ‘95% junk DNA’ theory. Now that has unravelled, there is nowhere to hide. Since simple maths demonstrate that random mutation could never produce this size of change for such a comparatively small jump from common ancestor to modern man and chimps, then it certainly could not do so for all the life forms that are supposed to have evolved from the first simple organism.
Conclusion
These facts: abiogenesis is impossible, so there is no way for evolution to have begun; the increase in specified complexity cannot appear by random processes; irreducibly complex systems could never be built by random mutation plus natural selection; the changes observed through natural selection can never create new kinds of life forms; ‘junk DNA’ is now being proved not to be junk at all; and the size of change in DNA to produce humans and chimps from a common ancestor is too great to have taken place in the time; plus a whole lot more; are why some scientists who previously accepted evolution as fact are now realising there has to be a better explanation. Scientists like Dean Kenyon, for example: a professor of biology at San Francisco State University, who in 1969 co-authored the pro-evolution book ‘Biochemical Predestination’. Years later, as a result of a question from one of his students, he looked again into the scientific facts, changed tack and now accepts that Intelligent Design is the only way life as we know it could have appeared.
If I may be so bold, I suggest to evolutionists contributing to this blog that they abandon the straw man arguments used by the likes of Dawkins, look at what creationists actually say, and reconsider the argument on the basis of genuine scientific facts.
Mention response
Hi Sarah, thank you for your response; few points that may not answer anything but are at least a response!
*It may surprise you that I don’t actually have a copy of ‘Bone of Contention’ anymore. When I read it again some years later, naturally it didn’t have the same impact upon me and to be honest I’m not sure which points it made had the most impact originally. The reason I’m fairly relaxed about this whole issue is that as I said in the original blog, though it was a key step for me, rejecting evolution did not in itself directly lead to me becoming a Christian. Where I ‘hang my hat’ in terms of evidence is on Jesus – what he said, what he did, and what it means.
*You're probably right to say that evolution is only a contentious issue in religious spheres but I think it’s an overstatement to say rejecting it amounts to rejecting the scientific method. Surely the scientific method is something that stands apart from evolution, and surely the scientific method doesn’t guarantee all scientists will agree on everything.
*My belief in a creator can’t be separated from my scientific understanding. If God is who we say God is, and is the creator then that is itself a motive for scientific enquiry – i.e. we’d expect to find order etc. Professor Dawkins acknowledges that the intricacies and minute dependencies that needed to be in place for life to exist do give the appearance of design. Clearly we'd differ as to why that is! My understanding is that many of the earlier scientists were in some ways motivated to investigate nature etc because they believed in a creator. For me, there is nothing to fear in the discovery of truth and my expectation is to find that it is compatible with the Bible.
*It's probably best before I’m lost under a deluge of evolution questions to point you and anyone reading to a couple of sites that may be interesting. Richard Dawkins & a fellow Oxford Professor called John Lennox (a Christian) had a debate that you can watch here (http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-le...). It’s a bit frustrating because of time limits but worth a watch. The same guy also has a website that addresses all sorts of questions much better than I can - http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/ .
response to your response to Sarah about evolution
Dear Martin,
I apologise for rubbing in few more points. This isn’t personal; as I’m sure you’re a lovely neighbour to the people of Corfe Mullen. I regret not having the opportunity to meet you in person as I live hundreds of miles away and rarely get to visit Dorset anymore. Nonetheless, I feel I have I duty to the readers of this blog, and anyone who might encounter creationist views from you or any other source, to show just how incompatible creationism is with the facts that we now have in front of us. Below are some responses to your reply to Sarah:
“The reason I’m fairly relaxed about this whole issue is that as I said in the original blog, though it was a key step for me, rejecting evolution did not in itself directly lead to me becoming a Christian.”
*Great. Then please read the evidence for evolution, and reconsider your views. When that happens, it would be great-hearted act from you to compose a statement on your blog that you retract your earlier views and accept evolution. As pastor of a church, you are an authority figure for many people, and it would do them no end of good (I am thinking particularly of children here) to observe your lead.
“You're probably right to say that evolution is only a contentious issue in religious spheres but I think it’s an overstatement to say rejecting it amounts to rejecting the scientific method.”
* I tend to agree with Sarah on this one. In principle, scientists can make errors; in fact they do so all the time in minor ways, usually because evidence for theories only accumulates progressively. But we’ve had 150 years to consider evolution by natural selection. Scientists are as sure about evolution as they are about any scientific fact. If they are wrong here, then the implications for science are enormous. Evolutionary biology could still be blown away by a single fossil rabbit from the Pre-Cambrian, but we’ve done enough gathering of fossils from the Pre-Cambrian to be very confident that this will not happen. There aren’t any mammal fossils that even come close to being that old. Let’s see what you are rejecting if you are a literal creationist…..you are rejecting modern biology in all its forms (which relies on the assumption of evolution), biochemistry (ditto), physics (e.g. the dating of rocks via radioactive isotopes), archaeology (e.g. the existence of human remains and artefacts prior to alleged Biblical creation), geology (e.g. e.g. theories of the formation of the Earth and interpretation of the fossil record), astronomy (e.g. theories of the formation of the solar system and the universe), and, depending on the details, the mathematics that underpins all those sciences. This would imply a terrific failing, and make us reconsider the whole way in which science is done; it would also probably destroy science for a considerable time given the huge degree to which public confidence would be undermined. I repeat, what is at stake when people reject evolution is much more than just evolution. That is why it is absolutely vital that people understand evolution and get behind those who do evolutionary biology.
“Surely the scientific method doesn’t guarantee all scientists will agree on everything.”
*Of course it doesn’t. As you will gather from my earlier comments, disagreement is the lifeblood of scientific discourse; it makes it self-correcting, hence reliable. It is PART OF the scientific process. But the vast majority (we’re talking >99% I’m sure) of scientists accept evolution, and have done for >70 years, ever since the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. There are some things that are never going to be disproved, and scientists, in their modesty, call them “well-supported theories”. The heliocentric view of the solar system is one. Evolution is another.
“ If God is who we say God is, and is the creator then that is itself a motive for scientific enquiry – i.e. we’d expect to find order etc. Professor Dawkins acknowledges that the intricacies and minute dependencies that needed to be in place for life to exist do give the appearance of design. Clearly we'd differ as to why that is!”
*But, have you not understood anything about what Dawkins, and evolutionary biology as a whole, goes on to show, which is that evolution by natural selection is what gives the appearance of design? In your earlier reply to me you said that you accepted microevolution. Now you appear to be saying that the appearance of design comes through a designer. If you accept evolution by natural selection, then a designer is not necessary to explain the appearance of design in living organisms. In addition, the existence of numerous flaws in design such as vestigial organs and the extremely recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve) can ONLY be satisfactorily explained by the historical legacy of evolutionary processes (if they are designed, then it is by an incompetent or duplicitous designer).
“ My understanding is that many of the earlier scientists were in some ways motivated to investigate nature etc because they believed in a creator.”
*Martin, that may be true, but look at what happened to the interpretations of the Bible made by mainstream religious organizations as a result of the Enlightenment. Having made discoveries that were incompatible with biblical literalism, they changed their view of Biblical literalism.
“For me, there is nothing to fear in the discovery of truth and my expectation is to find that it is compatible with the Bible.”
*But you already know that what science says and what the Bible (read literally) says are incompatible. If you want to find truth about the universe, and if you think that the scientific method is a viable route to such truth, then you have to give up a literal interpretation of the Bible. The only alternative is to deny vast amounts of modern science, and that is not something that a reasonable educated person can do. It is easy for most people to give up a literal interpretation of the Bible, because it was written by people who simply couldn’t have known the things about the universe that we now know.
“It's probably best before I’m lost under a deluge of evolution questions to point you and anyone reading to a couple of sites that may be interesting. Richard Dawkins & a fellow Oxford Professor called John Lennox (a Christian) had a debate that you can watch here (http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-le...). It’s a bit frustrating because of time limits but worth a watch. The same guy also has a website that addresses all sorts of questions much better than I can - http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/ .”
*Don’t give up on us this, Martin: if you are right, you should be ready to argue your case and win. But should there come a point when you are willing to concede, I hope you are honest with yourself when you reach that point. In the spirit of reciprocity, here is a useful website (a bit out of date but it’ll still do) with the cases of speciation in action that I referred to in my earlier response. You may also be interested in a browse around that site.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I wish you good luck on your intellectual journey: it is a journey all non-creationists make at some stage in their lives, and, I can assure you, not one to be afraid of but to be enjoyed.
Peter
Thank you for your response
Thank you for your response and the links, I shall have a proper watch/read shortly. I am slightly dubious as Lennox has apparently featured in the Daily Mail, and in that article I can see that he has made a huge metaphysical fallacy in his argument.
I would also say that rejection of evolution, which is observable in scientific conditions, does indeed equate to rejection of scientific method; you cannot accept it in some cases and not in others. You are saying that it fails in some cases, and this is not an acceptable state for it to be in.
I am rather of the opinion that evolution and creation are not incompatible and it pains me to see people choosing between them. Let's face it, the Bible simply does not explain the methods used for creation and taking the translated word completely literally is a rather large insult to the entire scientific schools set up to study evolution.
I shall stop there, as I am sure neither side is going to budge!
Sarah
evolution
Dear Martin,
I read your blog as I follow Corfe Mullen stuff a bit: my grandfather lived most of his life here and I spent many happy days here as a child. I'd like to take you up on your rejection of evolution. The vast majority of Bishops, and even the Pope accept evolution as a fact, as of course do the vast majority of working scientists, and that is why evolution is required learning in schools. This should get you worried that your stance is incorrect, but not decide the issue for you on its own. Every day, you are faced with evidence for evolution slap in the face: when we are ill we take antibiotics that are used because of the evolved resistance of germs to other antibiotics. You eat food that has been sprayed with pesticides that are used because of the evolved resistance of insect pests to previous pesticides. You eat crops and crop animals that have been artificially selected using an evolutionary process. When you eat your fish and chips, you are eating fish that have evolved to a smaller size over the last 50 years because we have selected off the big ones over many generations. When you walk your dog you are walking an animal that has been artifically selected for friendliness, shape, colour etc. We get back ache and develop gills as embryos because of the legacy of our evolutionary past. Evolution is all around you: the evidence is incontrovertible. If you have been convinced otherwise by a Christian pamphlet then I will gladly point out exactly where that pamphlet goes wrong for you: please send me a copy or point out the text that you find convincing about it. But I suggest that you dig deeper into the evidence for evolution yourself. Modern society rests on an understanding of the fact of evolution. A good starting point would be getting yourself a copy of Richard Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth, or Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Look at the evidence critically because evidence is what allows us to decide what is true or not. The fact of evolution is also a spritually uplifting piece of knowledge: all organisms are your relatives, and you are here because your ancestors struggled to survive and reproduce as bacteria and worms and fish and reptiles an monkeys.
Best wishes,
Peter
Evolution response
Dear Peter
Thank you for your reply to the blog. I’ve responded to some points below but clearly it’s not possible to clear this topic up in such a forum, and as I said, I’m no expert, and neither do I have the time to become one! But here goes…
*That Bishops, the Pope, the majority of scientists, many eminent scientists etc accept evolution as fact is not in and of itself, in my view, evidence of truth. Which I’d guess you’d agree with. I was aware in rejecting evolution in the first place that I was swimming against a very strong stream. The reality is, while it’s easier to find impressive people who accept evolution, it’s not too difficult to find impressive, extremely intelligent people who don’t accept it.
*As far as I understand the examples you list they don’t seem to me to represent incontrovertible evidence for evolution. Though I think I must clarify my terms. Clearly species adapt and change. Micro ‘evolution’ is there all around us. What isn’t around us to see is species becoming another species. Obviously dog evolution and the fish change you mention is manipulated by humanity, and so I wouldn’t think it really represents evidence anyway, but even so, all the different dog type’s are still dogs, and later dogs are not more advanced / complex than earlier breeds.
*I have a copy of Professor Dawkins book you mention that is on my list to get through. As it happens I have engaged with some of his teaching when I did a monthly series at our church in the evenings looking at a chapter of ‘The God Delusion’ each session. Fortunately for me, someone came along who was quite convinced about Professor Dawkin’s stance on evolution and so we had many interesting discussions. I remain unconvinced, though if I’m honest, I simply didn't understand some of the scientific details I read in his book.
*I am sure however that this debate, and people’s commitment to their view of evolution is about more than science, despite what people might claim. Firstly, if macroevolution (climbing mount improbable as I think Pr Dawkins calls it) happens over millions/billions of years – clearly evidence for it is not the same as we normally think of scientific proof. Yet zeal for the view abounds. Secondly, you describe belief in evolution as spiritually uplifting. Professor Dawkins himself talks about belief in it as like ‘raised consciousness’. Surely that generates a greater commitment to a view than the purely scientific approach would.
I’ll stop here, though I fear I’ve started something that may take some stopping!
Every blessing
Martin
evolution response
Dear Martin,
*I find it interesting that you can claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists are wrong about what many would consider the most influential and well supported scientific theory of all time, and in the same breath admit that you are not an expert on it. Forgive me for feeling a touch of irony there. If I were to be so bold as to claim that a major scientific theory was wrong, I would at least make sure that I knew a decent amount about the subject, if nothing else because it would give me confidence in my conclusions. Still, it’s good to know that you plan to read a popular introductory book on the evidence for evolution. May I however politely suggest that you do make time to become well informed on evolution since you are the pastor of a church which promotes literal interpretation of the Bible, and the two are rather contradictory? Not finding the time does not appear to be an option for you. I do encourage you to continue using your sceptical, critical approach as a means to finding truth in life, and to apply it widely and properly. To help, I recommend to anyone Carl Sagan’s “balony detection kit”:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
Here are some responses to your other points:
“The reality is, while it’s easier to find impressive people who accept evolution, it’s not too difficult to find impressive, extremely intelligent people who don’t accept it.”
*In terms of numbers of people, I’m afraid that is all too true. There are, for example, 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, almost all creationists, and 40% of Americans declare themselves to be creationists. Even in the UK, the figures are shockingly high, about 20%. So in terms of numbers you are in good company. However, in terms of whether these people are impressive, I beg to differ. I’ll tell you what I would find impressive; if a large proportion of practicing scientists had serious doubts. Why? They are in the best place to judge, and they delight in bringing each other down. If there were serious problems with the evidence for evolution, they would all be signing up like the plague to bring it down. That’s the nature of sceptical critical inquiry; it is self-correcting. It hasn’t happened; in fact the evidence for evolution has just got stronger and stronger.
“Clearly species adapt and change. Micro ‘evolution’ is there all around us.”
*It’s good to know that you accept that micro-evolution happens. Congratulations, you are half way there. Given that this appears to be an acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, you may be interested to know, if you didn’t already, that the co-discoverer of natural selection, Wallace, is buried around the corner from you. His grave is worth a visit:
http://wallacefund.info/1999-wallace-s-grave
“What isn’t around us to see is species becoming another species.”
This is simply incorrect. There are plenty of documented examples of species forming during human history. Look it up in any evolution textbook. Many of these are hybrid speciation events, naturally, because that’s a rapid mechanism of speciation (but one that still knocks creationism on the head), but there are other examples too; the apple maggot fly in N. America is a standard text book example that does not involve hybridization. In addition to these are diverging subspecies and incipient species in vast numbers in all different kinds of organisms, as well as species that are isolated by mating preference but not by offspring inviability, such as any ducks, or the cichlid fish of the African Great Lakes. These are exactly the stages you would expect to see if species diverged gradually by microevolutionary change.
“ Obviously dog evolution and the fish change you mention is manipulated by humanity, and so I wouldn’t think it really represents evidence anyway”
*Funny that you would dismiss artificial selection as not constituting evidence. I think most people would consider it some of the most impressive evidence for microevolutionary change, since you can actually watch it happening, and it was a major part of the Origin of Species for that very reason. If microevolution can happen by artificial selection, it shows that natural selection would be sufficient to cause microevolutionary change as well.
“All the different dog type’s are still dogs, and later dogs are not more advanced / complex than earlier breeds.”
*Yes, they are still dogs. I’m afraid you would naturally have to wait a few more years, with complete reproductive isolation of breeds, for full speciation to happen. But I do believe that there are already breeds that are effectively reproductively isolated; Great Danes and Pekingese for example probably have a few problems. Your statement about later dogs not being more complex than earlier breeds probably reflects a misunderstanding about the nature of evolution. It does not necessarily lead to greater complexity; in fact it is perfectly possible to evolve reduced complexity, and this has happened in the evolution of many parasitic lineages.
“I remain unconvinced, though if I’m honest, I simply didn't understand some of the scientific details I read in his book.”
*Well, I guess I appreciate the honesty, but if you don’t understand something, doesn’t that encourage you to try harder to understand it before you decide about it?
“Firstly, if macroevolution (climbing mount improbable as I think Pr Dawkins calls it) happens over millions/billions of years – clearly evidence for it is not the same as we normally think of scientific proof. Yet zeal for the view abounds.”
*Biologists don’t normally refer to proofs; they talk about evidence, and gauge whether the evidence tends to support this particular idea or that one. They consider things such as quantity of evidence, whether it comes from a single source or multiple sources, how consistent and conclusive it is and so on. This is normal science, and it is what evolutionary biologists do too. With evolution, the evidence is vast (just count up the amount of DNA sequence data there is now, or the number of fossils), comes from a number of independent sources, and it all, I repeat every bit of it, supports the view that all life on Earth evolved from a single common ancestor over 3 billion years ago. When you say zeal for the view abounds, I think that’s a loaded phrase. It appears unlikely that anything will ever be discovered that can overturn such a vast amount of evidence. If it ever was discovered, scientists would be the first to pounce on it to claim their Nobel prizes.
“Secondly, you describe belief in evolution as spiritually uplifting. Professor Dawkins himself talks about belief in it as like ‘raised consciousness’. Surely that generates a greater commitment to a view than the purely scientific approach would. “
*See above comments. Individual scientists are sometimes over-committed to their own pet theories; it’s a natural instinct that needs restraining. But they exist in a sceptical critical community that is motivated to bring down incorrect ideas. This self-correcting scientific approach is totally different to the self-reinforcing faith-based approach.
I do wish you all the best with your further inquiries into evolution. I think you have some delightful and eye-opening times ahead.
With all best wishes,
Peter