Darwin

Vij Sodera writes-: "Countless examples could be cited to show that
there is no evidence that any creature ever did evolve, or could have,
evolved into a completely different creature. Period. However, a single
example is sufficient to show that the only fact about evolution is that
it is a myth. The fossil and biological evidence shows unequivocally that
the bird lung cannot have and did not evolve from amphibian or reptilian
formats. If it did not evolve then it must have been as it is from the
beginning."

I think that Vij Sodera displays a non-scientific attitude when he
states that no creature ever evolved, or could have evolved into a
completely different creature. The correct scientific attitude is to state
that the present-day theory of evolution has many weak/incomplete points
and that it cannot presently explain many biological phenomena eg. how the
bird lung evolved from amphibian lung forms. However, it is totally
unscientific to fixedly claim that a scientific theory of evolution cannot
ever possibly explain these phenomena. The beauty of a scientific theory
is that it is constantly modifiable as new evidence and new understandings
come into being. That is the fundamental nature of science!
Vij Sodera concludes that if the bird lung did not evolve, then it must
have been as it is from the beginning. This statement represents flawed
scientific reasoning for two reasons. First of all, an "absence of
evidence" of evolution is not the same thing as "evidence of absence of
evidence". The truth is that we do not presently know whether the bird
lung could have evolved from another primitive lung form, but it is still
theoretically possible that it could have occurred. Secondly, the
statement that "it must have been as it is from the beginning" is not a
scientific statement, but merely a personal opinion. Many people belief
that an "intelligent designer" created all forms of life and that all
those forms have existed unchanged from the beginning. That particular
belief is not scientific because it cannot be tested. Whether an
individual person decides to adopt that particular belief is
individualistic, and people are free to adopt any belief. However, one
cannot claim that a non-testable belief (non-modifiable theory) is a
scientific belief.

I think that it scientifically useful for critics, like Vij Sodera,
to criticise the theory of evolution. Sound criticism will force
proponents of any particular scientific theory of evolution to modify
their theory in order to decrease its falsifiability factor and thereby
strengthen its believability factor. Scientific hypotheses can
theoretically become more solid (more believable) as new evidence and new
understandings are incorporated as "evidence". By contrast, non-scientific
statements, like a fixed belief "that the bird lung must have existed
unchanged from the beginning" or "human beings cannot have evolved from
apes", have no scientific validity, and provide no scientific insights.

Jeff Mann.

Competing interests:
None declared