Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

That’s nice, John.  Gaps may exist, but the existence of gaps doesn’t mean that your fantasy is one.

Or, for that matter, that if there were some fantasy shaped gap your fantasy would be the fit for it.

I’m not really sure why you think the comparison to Swiss cheese fits.  Our theory of evolution is better demonstrated than our theory of gravity.  It’s the unifying theory of biology.  The most well attested theory in all of the sciences, with multiple lines of evidence from every relevant discipline converging on its contents.  Importantly, there has yet to be any evidence to the contrary.

What are we doing here?  Turnips exist, therefore leprechauns.  That’s not how that works.  An endless game if “we don’t know everything”?  Fine, but we don’t need to know everything to know something.

I'm not understanding what you're saying when you talk about fantasies, turnips and leprechauns.

There are multiple theories of gravity; and I'm pretty sure most of them are rather problematic (I'm not a physicist though). So that's an odd comparison. It also sounds like propaganda to say its the most well attested theory in all the sciences. Not that any scientist has actually measured which theory is most well-attested, but I would think the atomic theory or the cell theory, or the germ theory are at least good candidates for that crown. At least within psychology, evolutionary theories offer the worst possible explanations for behavior; rather indistinguishable from Freudian theories. Its not much of a unifying theory when it makes a mess of psychology. Pervasive yes; but unifying, thats questionable.