Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[LadyForCamus]

Sure, why not?  Is that what your position is?  You’d accept the theory of evolution by natural selection in its entirety if it wasn’t for that pesky human eye business? Please, do clarify.

[quotes]Probably not, theories are tools. They don't require our beliefs or acceptance, only our understanding an attention.

 
That’s not quite right. Scientific theories are bodies of facts that describe, to the best of our current knowledge, the mechanism of action for a particular phenomenon. Science is the tool that allows us to collect the data that goes into building a theory. You and I are free to accept or not accept any theory, (scientific or laymen’s) for any reason, but it doesn’t follow that those reasons are necessarily sound.

If the pesky human eye business, and all the issues in evolutionary psychology are resolve for example, then I'll be more inclined to use the theory for the formulation of hypotheses and observations. Sorry, I just have no interest in joining any evolution cults.

You’re a Christian. Do you think there is a well-evidenced case for your assertion that Yahweh created the universe, and Jesus is his son who died for your sins and came back to life three days later? I’m just curious if you apply the same strict standards of evidence you use for evaluating the theory of evolution to your religious beliefs. You said earlier that if there is insufficient evidence to accept a theory, that doesn’t mean we have to replace it with something else. Do you, personally, have a replacement hypothesis in mind if evolution fails to meet your standards of evidence? If your answer is yes, what is the hypothesis, and what compelling evidence has lead you to think it’s a possible, or even probable alternative?