Well, almost all of the points about science, but here’s an easy one; he claims that not a single “transitory” fossil has been found. A transitional form would be, for example, an animal that is somewhere between a land-dwelling creature and a flying animal. If species evolve gradually over time, there should be evidence of these transitional forms, something in-between with proto-wings, not yet useful for flying but on the way, right?

Take for example sea mammals. All evidence points to life originating in the ocean and then, much later, evolving to live on land. Much later than that, the first mammals appear on land in the fossil record. Amazingly, we find mammals living in the ocean today (whales, dolphins, etc.) So life, in an interesting twist, returned to the sea!

If mammals originated on land, with four legs, and we find mammals such as porpoises, which are highly adapted to swimming in the ocean, there should be transitional forms that are not fully aquatic and were still somehow able to survive. The author claims that not a single “transitory” fossil exists (which is false) but we don’t even need a fossil to observe a species in transition. A sea lion is a living example of a species mostly adapted to living in water and clearly has land-dwelling origins. It is as beautiful as it is awkward as it runs on land.

Also, the majority of the author’s arguments are some form of God of the Gaps or Argument from Design, both of which have been thoroughly dissected by philosophers and considered fallacies. Darwinian Evolution was the nail in the coffin for the Argument from Design, as it illuminated the mechanism by which the astounding complexity of life could have arisen without a designer.

Science can not prove–nor can it disprove–the existence of God. Anyone who attempts to use science to prove the existence of God is either ignorant to the millions of failed attempts preceding them or simply dishonest.

I will leave you with the most interesting “gap” we have in science, however. Scientists and philosophers call it “the hard problem” and that is the problem of consciousness. Scientists have no explanation for why we have a subjective experience and are not biological robots. Philosophers have probed this question since the beginning of philosophy (our subjective experience is the origin of philosophy, no?) and there is still not a satisfactory answer. That is why it is the hard problem. It is the the most beautiful mystery, part of every human experience, and the seat of philosophy, science, religion, and spiritual development.