An article was published in The Guardian today, featuring a discussion between Oxford Zoologist, Richard Dawkins, and the renowned broadcaster, Sir David Attenborough.
Describing the transformation of a dragonfly larva into a dragonfly, the pair remarked,
DA: I am a naturalist rather than a scientist. Simply looking at a flower or a frog has always seemed to me to be just about the most interesting thing there is. Others say human beings are pretty interesting, which they are, but as a child you’re not interested in Auntie Flo’s psychology; you’re interested in how a dragonfly larva turns into a dragonfly.
RD: Yes, it’s carrying inside it two entirely separate blueprints, two different programmes.
DA: I couldn’t believe it! I remember asking an adult, “What goes on inside a cocoon?” and he said, “The caterpillar is totally broken down into a kind of soup. And then it starts again.” And I remember saying, “That can’t be right.” As a procedure, you can’t imagine how it evolved.
But of course, as we all know, evolution by natural selection and random mutation is true, regardless of the evidence. We know that the evidence will ultimately turn out to be consistent with Darwinian evolution, because Darwinism may be taken as an a priori fact. Any perceived challenges to Darwinian Theory ought to be taken as evidence of a lack of imagination on our part, not as difficulties for Darwinism.
Theory first, evidence later.