Richard Dawkins

[udontknowmickey]

From the Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins :

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”

“Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.”

[ QUOTE ]

“Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the competing theories seem to be either aliens or myths. But all that aside there is ample evidence for the theory.

[benkahuna]

What's so great about evolution as a theory is there's no evidence?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

“Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Priceless.

[Peter666]

“Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.”

If a "brilliant" physicist makes such a statement, will Sklansky believe him over a garbageman who says you should not be inclined to believe anything without evidence? What are the odds in this matter?

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
What's so great about evolution as a theory if there's no evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

FMP

[AleoMagus]

You guys don't get it. There are other reasons to believe things than just experimental evidence.

Dawkins is talking (I suspect) about the simplicity, elegance, and plausability of the theory when compared to rival theories

The same factors which lead string theorists to do so much work with respect to a theory which actually has no evidence as of yet.

Regards
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
What's so great about evolution as a theory if there's no evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

As stated, there is ample evidence, but to answer your question, I'll pose a similar situation.

Suppose a farmer lives near a pack of wolves and very far from any other people. He has a bunch of chickens which he keeps in a pen outside his house. One day he wakes up to find no chickens.

For some reason two competing theories pop into his head

1) The wolves came, killed his chickens and ran off with them.

2) The chickens magically called out to their chicken overlord to send them a chicken coup escape kit. The chicken overlord, who lived in the magical land of chickenonia went on a quest into the escape kit mountains to aquire such a relic. After fighting off a fire breathing dragon, he found one, and gave it to his most trusted servant, a leprechaun. This leprechan then travelled the world in search of the chickens until he found them, and passed on the escape kit, which promptly teleported the chickens and the leprechaun back to the chicken king's palace where they all had a big party.

There is no direct physical evidence for either of these theories. Can we still prefer one over the other?

Regards
Brad S

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's so great about evolution as a theory if there's no evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

As stated, there is ample evidence, but to answer your question, I'll pose a similar situation.

Suppose a farmer lives near a pack of wolves and very far from any other people. He has a bunch of chickens which he keeps in a pen outside his house. One day he wakes up to find no chickens.

For some reason two competing theories pop into his head

1) The wolves came, killed his chickens and ran off with them.

2) The chickens magically called out to their chicken overlord to send them a chicken coup escape kit. The chicken overlord, who lived in the magical land of chickenonia went on a quest into the escape kit mountains to aquire such a relic. After fighting off a fire breathing dragon, he found one, and gave it to his most trusted servant, a leprechaun. This leprechan then travelled the world in search of the chickens until he found them, and passed on the escape kit, which promptly teleported the chickens and the leprechaun back to the chicken king's palace where they all had a big party.

There is no direct physical evidence for either of these theories. Can we still prefer one over the other?

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be my favorite post that I have ever read in this forum. The only thing better than an excellent explanation is an excellent explanation that involves a chicken overlord.

[Neil Stevens]

No evidence of the wolves?

I take it the wolves made a trip to escape kit mountain before hand themselves, in order to use the teleportation device to get into the pen undetected, then get out with the chickens.