Most people here understand what the word 'theory' means when we use it in science. The 'theory' of gravity or the 'theory' of relativity are hardling the same thing as the 'theory of where I left my sunglasses.' We also appreciate the archeological and anthropological evidence for evolution.
But even saying the word anthropological will glaze over an entire cocktail party in a single blow and cause your primary antagonist to utter the phrase 'liberal intellectual' so what's an elitist liberal intellectual to do? more on the flip side.
The Dobsons and the James Kennedy's of the world are creating themselves an army of evolution bashing creationists. But they use simple easily understandable concepts that appeal emotionally and logically if not scientifically (you don't really think that a monkey is your ancestor do you?) So when we try to use science and the scientific method we are hopelessly bogged down. It is much harder to talk about the facts in a 200 word letter to the editor than it is to say 'I'm not related to a monkey and I know so because God said so' (14 words! brilliant!)
But we have one word that stops these idiots in their tracks: DOGS.
That's right, dogs. Dogs have literally evolved before our eyes. Was the border collie created by God 4,000 years ago to herd sheep? The German Shepard created to sniff out cocaine? The Kouvas created to protect homes from burglars? Noah took with him on the ark hundreds of dogs, each a specific breed designed by God to serve a different purpose for humanity?
Dogs are evolutionary evidence that everyone can understand. People picked the dogs who were best at task A and bred them together. Now imagine that instead of people doing it over a couple hundred years (cause that is all it takes) nature did it over millions of years. The creatures with the longest necks were best at reaching more food, so they were more likely to breed, so we get giraffes. The long neck is a hereditary trait just like a guard dog or a bloodhound.
This argument WILL confound people. The creationists base themselves on two main points.
- There is no visible evidence for evolution
- Animals do not choose their own traits
The second one is a manipulation of people's perceptions of evolutionary theory. But it is tricky to dislodge. Dogs dislodges this by showing how silly it is. The bloodhound's grandfather didn't decide to have a strong sense of smell, it was bred into the line. And the evolution of dog breeds has happened over the course of recorded history. It is a documented and observed evolution.
I'm sure there are biologists out there and strict scientists who bristle at this kind of idea. Like we are giving up on arguing the real science. We can't do that, we will keep fighting in the universities and among academics. But for the letters to the editors page lets talk dogs.
Plus they're so darn cute.
