“If we take Darwinian evolution seriously, the gaps, far from being annoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect.”
Richard Dawkins, “The Blind Watchmaker.”
You’ve got to love atheists - huh? A lack of evidential support for their hypothesis is exactly what they expect in order to prove their theory. Kinda like Jennifer Lopez saying she meant to trip at the American Music Awards. Anyhow, lucky for atheists that the fossil record has huge gaps of missing evidence otherwise we might not be able to trust the theory.
What Dawkins really means is that since he a priori rejects anything other than naturalism, it doesn’t matter if there is a lot of evidential support or absolutely no evidential support. The conclusion will be the same. According to Dawkins and other atheists, naturalism is how life came about and that’s all there is to it.
“But,” you say, “that’s not how the scientific method works.” Well, it is if the scientist is an atheist. Listen to this!
“The theory of evolution is the only theory we know of. Even if the evidence did not favour it, it would still be the best theory available.”
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 240
Atheist Steven Pinker agrees. “Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet, even if there were no evidence for it.”
“How the Mind Works,” 162
Now THAT’S science. Really! That’s exactly how atheist influenced science works. First it a priori excludes alternative theories and then it declares, "This is how it happened." And here’s how science, at least in part, got that way.
Science, particularly atheistic science has had to adjust from thinking that science can and had discovered everything there was to know, to accepting that it really knows for certain, nothing at all. In the 19th century it would not have been hard to hear scientists say things like”
Pretty much ‘everything that matters has been seen and measured.’
Simon Newcomb, “The Place of Astronomy Among the Sciences.” 69-70
Max Planck tells of how he wanted to study the natural sciences but was discouraged from doing so by a professor of physics because “nothing worthwhile remained to be discovered.”
“A Scientific Autobiography.” 8
James Maxwell said that “physics has uncovered all that can be known.”
“The scientific papers of James Clerk Maxwell, vol 2, 244
The same was true of evolutionary biology. Geneticist William Bateson stated that it was “a waste of time to study variation because Darwin has swept the field.”
“Mendel’s Principles of Heredity” 2,3
And then came what is now known as Radical Theory Change. What was once thought to be right, was discovered to be wrong. What was once trusted is now looked upon with scepticism. Theories upon which science thought it could permanently rest had to be abandoned as a whole new world of discovery opened up.
Here is where atheists show their common nature with all those who deny God in their lives. In order to feel good about themselves, atheists change the definition of good to match the reality they’re living. For example, when enough people can’t make their marriages work, humans declare that marriage itself isn’t that good and that in fact divorce is better. When enough people can’t stop screwing around on their spouses, humans declare that fidelity isn’t such a great thing and that in fact adultery is just fine thank you very much. And in science? While many still believe that science is the only arbiter of truth, it is now seen by atheists as a good thing to find out that you have been wrong. Not knowing what you’re talking about is now seen as a strength. Atheists have to live with the fact that what they believe to be true today may be completely wrong tomorrow - AND - atheists become furious when they encounter anyone else to does not live in a perpetual state of doubt and uncertainty.
While he tries to act otherwise, Dawkins has to know that he can’t depend on what he today calls a certainty. And when the thing upon which you depend lacks supporting evidence, well, what you do is say, that “turns out to be exactly what we should positively expect.” And since Dawkins makes positive statements about things for which there will NEVER be evidence (Life is evolving on a billion planets even as we speak; Inanimate and inorganic gases EVOLVED into living matter) this saying really does come to life: “We have so much trouble communicating with others because our lives are so full of contradictions that we can’t even communicate with ourselves.”