I can’t say I don’t like Dawkins the man. I can say that I don’t like the smugness with which he criticizes those who don’t agree with him, especially when some of those people are other scientists. He has been widely criticized for his “Memes” theory (his own invention) because it is inexact and impossible to “prove”. As such, it fails to explain or be a means to concretely show how Natural Selection has seen fit to give us something for which we have no need for, namely the concept of a deity.
I do make a distinction between the theory of Gravity and the theory of Evolution. The difference is that a scientific theory in general is based on hypotheses that can be corroborated, substantiated, experimented upon, etc. The important thing for me in that definition is the method by which that is accomplished. Often, it is reproducible and the discrete steps for the process are clearly stated.
This is the reason for why there’s a difference between the theory of Quantum Mechanics and String Theory. String Theory (better yet Super Symmetry) cannot be experimented upon or physically verified. And so, it remains a very plausible conjecture while still named a “theory”. Evolution takes on a similar aspect in that, while it is a very plausible conjecture, much of the mechanism for how it happens cannot be duplicated or demonstrated by experimentation. Even when there are reports of Evolution in action due to interesting mutations, they only support the idea of mutations but not HOW the culmination of mutations bring about a new feature, let alone a new organism.
As some have suggested, “Evolution in action” amounts to adaptations by certain organisms to their environment. That could simply mean that the organism already has the ability in its genotype to produce changes, not that it spontaneously arose. The observed change in itself is not a demonstration of a new evolutionary process which gives rise to an organism's ability it didn’t have before. That’s not to say that the process does not exist. But for Science, it is not a fact until it can be explained and repeatedly demonstrated.
This also brings confusion about the verb “prove” (/pro͞ov/). The parent root “proof” (n.) is simply a repeatable process which will either confirm a thing or to validate it. So in the absence of a verifiable mechanism (the proof), it’s difficult to, however likely, to make definitive statements about a thing, especially in Evolution.
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is being seriously challenged by other physicists for assumptions it makes about Time. In fact, some scientists believe that they can eliminate time all-together from Einstein’s equations and solve some of the problems with the missing matter and energy (Dark matter and Dark energy) that is theorized must exists in order to keep galaxies from flying apart. So where does that leave such a “theory”? Well, it doesn’t mean it’s entirely wrong. It may mean that some aspects of it are in doubt. It may mean that some initial assumptions were incorrect. Ultimately, to me, it means that we need to look at things with an attitude of less certainty and fewer absolutes.
