Analysis of Alan Roger´s Evidence of Evolution

Evolution has been a constantly debated topic with central importance in defining the origin of man. Creationism is still a common belief in modern society, somehow maintaining validity through assumed truth; this belief attained its popularity many years before the concept of evolution itself, yet is the main opponent of the theory of evolution. Alan Rogers, author of In Evidence for Evolution, provides thorough arguments against creationism, ranging from molecular to morphological data. He argues that many creationists use “arguments from personal incredulity,” meaning that a lack of a fathomable explanation to a question is proof of an answer. Creationists are strong proponents of these arguments; rather than acknowledging the overwhelming amount of scientific facts for evolution, the lack of explanation to compliment biblical record is used as proof against evolution. Rogers himself states: there is no active research into the occurrence of evolution; that issue was settled centuries ago and is no longer an interesting scientific question (p. 3). From an aspiring biologist’s perspective, evolution as fact has not been questioned for many years. Unfortunately, popular culture dictates its truth through social beliefs rather than concrete evidence. Another author, Steven Pinker, sees Rogers’ evidence as for the political controversy of evolution, rather than its occurrence. Roger’s interpretation of creationism not only sheds light on the importance of evolution, but also proves its correctness with minimal room for speculation.

The recognized theory of evolution, distinguished using the terminology “natural selection,” began with On the Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin. Darwin noted that as he moved throughout the Ga...

... middle of paper ...

... Rogers’ addressing of skepticism and evidence against it shows his desire for truth. Rogers presents common questions from skeptics of evolution throughout the literature. Rogers does an extraordinary job at avoiding patronizing remarks, although a minor hint of bias appears every so often in his phrasing. One could argue that the entire book is biased; I refute this statement by referencing the extensive evidence behind Rogers’ theories. Rogers even states that his conclusions may be perfectly logical and still not true; he provides factual evidence to the reader and not biased opinions. He addresses skepticism with an open mind and recognizes the scientific advances that come from questioning theories. In order to properly prove a point, one must provide all evidence possible and address all known skepticisms: Rogers does an extraordinary job of doing just that.