I read plenty of Dawkins and I find it quite amusing that he states that he isn't sure if his theories are correct, and that if no new evidence is found (e.g. transitional fossils) then scrap his theory. What happened? No new evidence found! OOPS!
Hmm, here I was thinking that each and every living thing presently and every fossil found so far
and as will be found in the future is BY DEFINITION transitional, as every living thing is transitional between its parents and its offspring. The wise
doubt, only the fools know for sure. And, yes, each and every scientist of even the slightest merit will state that, when new evidence disproofs (part of) an existing theory, that theory will need modification, or even be scrapped. Scientist actually do
look for anything that will disprove their theories. Explanation first, facts to fit and follow = religion (including politics); facts first, explanation to fit and follow = science.
Easy to see the simple reality in and of that, but one cannot teach those who will not open their eyes...
My biggest fear? That the stupid will take of the world (and I am not quite sure I should put that in
future tense, actually...).
All best,
gep