These three statements sum up my inherent skepticism about evolution. Note that my doubts have nothing to do with my religious faith; in fact they preceded it by years.
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
– Richard Dawkins
“If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.”
– David Pilbeam
“I have a hunch that we may come back to look back on the invention of the ESS [Evolutionary Stable Strategy] as one of the most important advances in evolutionary theory since Darwin.”
– Richard Dawkins
Now, there is a fair amount of evidence that I am neither ignorant nor stupid. Nor am I insane and I trust the reader will accept the postulate that my wickedness has no bearing on my opinion of any science. So, from my perspective, it’s immediately clear that the emperor has no clothes. Pilbeam expresses my feelings on the matter very well indeed, especially in light of the fact that the very important advance that Dawkins mentions is an unscientific load of ontological hogwash; on the same game theory basis, I could easily prove that elves have souls.
The biggest single problem that evolution proponents do not seem to be willing to admit in public is that a proposed explanation is not evidence. “It could have happened this way” is a hypothesis, not a proof. Their standards are so much lower than even relatively soft sciences such as economics and psychology that the “science” would be more accurately described as a philosophy. This may explain why philosophers such as Daniel C. Dennett feel perfectly comfortable writing books about this particular “science”.(1)
Nor is pointing to other sciences, as evolutionary biologists often do, a reasonable defense of the theory. They are demonstrably not making use of the same scientody; where are the evolutionary engineers? I fly an airplane in confidence because I trust in the ability of the aeronautical engineers to understand and make correct use of the scientific principles involved. But the evolutionary analogy is strapping yourself into a chair attached to a giant rubber band, with Richard Dawkins whispering into your ear that you just have to imagine the body of the plane, the wings, the engine and the pilot before being launched into the sky.
I’ll keep my feet on the metaphorical ground until I see a few evolved airplanes taking off and landing successfully.
(1) Note for evolutionary biologists: I am merely suggesting this as a possibility, I have not actually proved it to be the case.