If it's any indication of the quality of the editorial, its title is a play on the creationist propaganda techniques of the same name, a vapid series of "stumper" questions which usually utterly fail to grasp basic concepts in not only biology, but science itself ("if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?!" or "how did nothing explode?!") or are outright lies miscategorized as questions ("how did millions of life forms evolve with absolutely no evidence of major change?") and are somehow meant to "demolish" the theory of evolution.
For some strange reason, they're only a hit with fellow creationists. To non-creationists, it's like attempting to demolish a physics professor's "faith" in gravity by retorting, "Oh yeah! Then how come birds fly?!". Full of win, it is not.
Evolutionary theory does not explain everything we want to know about the natural world or human life, and some of what evolutionary theory purports to explain it hardly elucidates at all.Okay, what's the problem?
*skips lengthy, irrelevant God-talk*
Conway has argued evolution is not arbitrary and if life were to evolve again, it would look very much as it does now.Apparently, the evolution of complex, intelligent life --> God. Massive non-sequitur spotted.
The physicist Freeman Dyson said: "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture … the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming."
These lines of reasoning do not prove God's existence
Okay, enough God stuff, where are the flaws in the theory of evolution that you mentioned earlier?
The problem I face is weariness with science-based dialogue partners like Richard Dawkins. It surprises me he is not chided for his innate scientific conservatism and metaphysical complacency. He won't take his depiction of Darwinism to logical conclusions. A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide.Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
*wades hip-deep in even more irrelevant God-talk*
*finishes the article*
The flaws in evolution? Personal dislike of atheism. That's it.
"I find the materialist atheism of some rational sceptics harder to accept than theistic belief, and cannot make sense of my life in this world without believing in God and providence. Crudely naturalistic science leaves no room for poetic truth, refuses to honour any spiritual element in physical things and cannot accept the existence of a human soul."
Well, who wrote this? Surely someone with some sort of biology qualifications. Nope, just some theologian denigrating evolution on religious grounds and pretending that these objections are based in science without ever backing it up.
If we lowered the bar any farther, it'd scrape the floor.
PZ covered the same editorial this morning, check it out.