nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + − It is impossible to exaggerate the magnitude of the problem that+ − Darwin and Wallace solved. I could mention the anatomy, cellular − structure, biochemistry and behaviour of literally any living − organism by example. But the most striking feats of apparent − design are those picked out - for obvious reasons - by creationist − authors, and it is with gentle irony that I derive mine from a − creationist book. Life - How Did It Get Here?, with no named − author but published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in − sixteen languages and eleven million copies, is obviously a firm − favourite because no fewer than six of those eleven million copies − have been sent to me as unsolicited gifts by well-wishers from − around the world. − Picking a page at random from this anonymous and lavishly distributed − work, we find the sponge known as Venus' Flower Basket − (Euplectella), accompanied by a quotation from Sir David − Attenborough, no less: 'When you look at a complex sponge − skeleton such as that made of silica spicules which is known as − Venus' Flower Basket, the imagination is baffled. How could quasiindependent − microscopic cells collaborate to secrete a million glassy − splinters and construct such an intricate and beautiful lattice? We − do not know.' The Watchtower authors lose no time in adding their − own punchline: 'But one thing we do know: Chance is not the likely − designer.' No indeed, chance is not the likely designer. That is one − thing on which we can all agree. The statistical improbability of − phenomena such as Euplectella's skeleton is the central problem − that any theory of life must solve. The greater the statistical − improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is − what improbable means. But the candidate solutions to the riddle − of improbability are not, as is falsely implied, design and chance. − They are design and natural selection. Chance is not a solution, − given the high levels of improbability we see in living organisms, − 120 T H K G O D I) E I, V S I O N − and no sane biologist ever suggested that it was. Design is not a real − solution either, as we shall see later; but for the moment I want to − continue demonstrating the problem that any theory of life must − solve: the problem of how to escape from chance. − Turning Watchtower's page, we find the wonderful plant known − as Dutchman's Pipe (Aristolochia trilobata), all of whose parts seem − elegantly designed to trap insects, cover them with pollen and send − them on their way to another Dutchman's Pipe. The intricate − elegance of the flower moves Watchtower to ask: 'Did all of this − happen by chance? Or did it happen by intelligent design?' Once − again, no of course it didn't happen by chance. Once again, intelligent − design is not the proper alternative to chance. Natural − selection is not only a parsimonious, plausible and elegant solution; − it is the only workable alternative to chance that has ever been − suggested. Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection − as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of − statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more − implausible intelligent design becomes. Seen clearly, intelligent − design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem. Once again, − this is because the designer himself (/herself/itself) immediately − raises the bigger problem of his own origin. Any entity capable of − intelligently designing something as improbable as a Dutchman's − Pipe (or a universe) would have to be even more improbable than a − Dutchman's Pipe. Far from terminating the vicious regress, God − aggravates it with a vengeance. − Turn another Watchtower page for an eloquent account of the − giant redwood (Sequoiadendron giganteum), a tree for which I − have a special affection because I have one in my garden - a mere − baby, scarcely more than a century old, but still the tallest tree in − the neighbourhood. 'A puny man, standing at a sequoia's base, can − only gaze upward in silent awe at its massive grandeur. Does it − make sense to believe that the shaping of this majestic giant and − of the tiny seed that packages it was not by design?' Yet again, if − you think the only alternative to design is chance then, no, it does − not make sense. But again the authors omit all mention of the real − alternative, natural selection, either because they genuinely don't − understand it or because they don't want to. − The process by which plants, whether tiny pimpernels or − W H Y T l i l - I U ; A L M O S T C F R T A I X L Y I S N O G O D 121 − massive wellingtonias, acquire the energy to build themselves is − photosynthesis. Watchtower again: ' "There are about seventy − separate chemical reactions involved in photosynthesis," one − biologist said. "It is truly a miraculous event." Green plants have − been called nature's "factories" - beautiful, quiet, nonpolluting, − producing oxygen, recycling water and feeding the world. Did they − just happen by chance? Is that truly believable?' No, it is not believable; − but the repetition of example after example gets us nowhere. − Creationist 'logic' is always the same. Some natural phenomenon is − too statistically improbable, too complex, too beautiful, too aweinspiring − to have come into existence by chance. Design is the only − alternative to chance that the authors can imagine. Therefore a − designer must have done it. And science's answer to this faulty logic − is also always the same. Design is not the only alternative to chance. − Natural selection is a better alternative. Indeed, design is not a real − alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it − solves: who designed the designer? Chance and design both fail as − solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of − them is the problem, and the other one regresses to it. Natural − selection is a real solution. It is the only workable solution that has − ever been suggested. And it is not only a workable solution, it is a − solution of stunning elegance and power. − What is it that makes natural selection succeed as a solution to − the problem of improbability, where chance and design both fail at − the starting gate? The answer is that natural selection is a cumulative − process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into − small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not − prohibitively so. When large numbers of these slightly improbable − events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation − is very very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be far − beyond the reach of chance. It is these end products that form the − subjects of the creationist's wearisomely recycled argument. The − creationist completely misses the point, because he (women should − for once not mind being excluded by the pronoun) insists on treating − the genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off event. − He doesn't understand the power of accumulation. − In Climbing Mount Improbable, I expressed the point in a − parable. One side of the mountain is a sheer cliff, impossible to − 1 2 2 • •! • ; . . ; • ) > ! » r i s ; s i o − climb, but on the other side is a gentle slope to the summit. On the − summit sits a complex device such as an eye or a bacterial flagellar − motor. The absurd notion that such complexity could − spontaneously self-assemble is symbolized by leaping from the foot − of the cliff to the top in one bound. Evolution, by contrast, goes − around the back of the mountain and creeps up the gentle slope to − the summit: easy! The principle of climbing the gentle slope as − opposed to leaping up the precipice is so simple, one is tempted to − marvel that it took so long for a Darwin to arrive on the scene and − discover it. By the time he did, nearly three centuries had elapsed − since Newton's annus mirabilis, although his achievement seems, − on the face of it, harder than Darwin's. − Another favourite metaphor for extreme improbability is the − combination lock on a bank vault. Theoretically, a bank robber − could get lucky and hit upon the right combination of numbers by − chance. In practice, the bank's combination lock is designed with − enough improbability to make this tantamount to impossible - − almost as unlikely as Fred Hoyle's Boeing 747. But imagine a badly − designed combination lock that gave out little hints progressivelythe − equivalent of the 'getting warmer' of children playing Hunt the − Slipper. Suppose that when each one of the dials approaches its − correct setting, the vault door opens another chink, and a dribble − of money trickles out. The burglar would home in on the jackpot − in no time. − Creationists who attempt to deploy the argument from improbability − in their favour always assume that biological − adaptation is a question of the jackpot or nothing. Another name − for the 'jackpot or nothing' fallacy is 'irreducible complexity' (IC). − Either the eye sees or it doesn't. Either the wing flies or it doesn't. − There are assumed to be no useful intermediates. But this is simply − wrong. Such intermediates abound in practice - which is exactly − what we should expect in theory. The combination lock of life is a − 'getting warmer, getting cooler, getting warmer' Hunt the Slipper − device. Real life seeks the gentle slopes at the back of Mount − Improbable, while creationists are blind to all but the daunting − precipice at the front. − Darwin devoted an entire chapter of the Origin of Species to − 'Difficulties on the theory of descent with modification', and it is − W H Y r i-i r R r A I M O S T C t R T A I N I Y IS NO <> o D 123 − fair to say that this brief chapter anticipated and disposed of every − single one of the alleged difficulties that have since been proposed, − right up to the present day. The most formidable difficulties are − Darwin's 'organs of extreme perfection and complication', sometimes − erroneously described as 'irreducibly complex'. Darwin − singled out the eye as posing a particularly challenging problem: 'To − suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting − the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts − of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic − aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I − freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.' Creationists gleefully − quote this sentence again and again. Needless to say, they never − quote what follows. Darwin's fulsomely free confession turned out − to be a rhetorical device. He was drawing his opponents towards − him so that his punch, when it came, struck the harder. The punch, − of course, was Darwin's effortless explanation of exactly how the − eye evolved by gradual degrees. Darwin may not have used the − phrase 'irreducible complexity', or 'the smooth gradient up Mount − Improbable', but he clearly understood the principle of both. − 'What is the use of half an eye?' and 'What is the use of half a − wing?' are both instances of the argument from 'irreducible complexity'. − A functioning unit is said to be irreducibly complex if the − removal of one of its parts causes the whole to cease functioning. − This has been assumed to be self-evident for both eyes and wings. − But as soon as we give these assumptions a moment's thought, we − immediately see the fallacy. A cataract patient with the lens of her − eye surgically removed can't see clear images without glasses, but − can see enough not to bump into a tree or fall over a cliff. Half a − wing is indeed not as good as a whole wing, but it is certainly better − than no wing at all. Half a wing could save your life by easing your − fall from a tree of a certain height. And 51 per cent of a wing could − save you if you fall from a slightly taller tree. Whatever fraction of − a wing you have, there is a fall from which it will save your life − where a slightly smaller winglet would not. The thought experiment − of trees of different height, from which one might fall, is just − one way to see, in theory, that there must be a smooth gradient − of advantage all the way from 1 per cent of a wing to 100 per − cent. The forests are replete with gliding or parachuting animals − 124 T H E G O D 1> E I U S I O N − illustrating, in practice, every step of the way up that particular − slope of Mount Improbable. − By analogy with the trees of different height, it is easy to imagine − situations in which half an eye would save the life of an animal − where 49 per cent of an eye would not. Smooth gradients are provided − by variations in lighting conditions, variations in the distance − at which you catch sight of your prey - or your predators. And, as − with wings and flight surfaces, plausible intermediates are not only − easy to imagine: they are abundant all around the animal kingdom. − A flatworm has an eye that, by any sensible measure, is less than − half a human eye. Nautilus (and perhaps its extinct ammonite − cousins who dominated Paleozoic and Mesozoic seas) has an eye − that is intermediate in quality between flatworm and human. − Unlike the flatworm eye, which can detect light and shade but see − no image, the Nautilus 'pinhole camera' eye makes a real image; − but it is a blurred and dim image compared to ours. It would be − spurious precision to put numbers on the improvement, but nobody − could sanely deny that these invertebrate eyes, and many others, are − all better than no eye at all, and all lie on a continuous and shallow − slope up Mount Improbable, with our eyes near a peak - not the − highest peak but a high one. In Climbing Mount Improbable, I − devoted a whole chapter each to the eye and the wing, demonstrating − how easy it was for them to evolve by slow (or even, maybe, not − all that slow) gradual degrees, and I will leave the subject here. − So, we have seen that eyes and wings are certainly not irreducibly − complex; but what is more interesting than these particular − examples is the general lesson we should draw. The fact that so − many people have been dead wrong over these obvious cases should − serve to warn us of other examples that are less obvious, such as the − cellular and biochemical cases now being touted by those − creationists who shelter under the politically expedient euphemism − of 'intelligent design theorists'. − We have a cautionary tale here, and it is telling us this: do not − just declare things to be irreducibly complex; the chances are that − you haven't looked carefully enough at the details, or thought carefully − enough about them. On the other hand, we on the science side − must not be too dogmatically confident. Maybe there is something − out there in nature that really does preclude, by its genuinely − W H Y ' 1 1 I K R K A L M O S T (.: F R T A 1 N [. Y 15 NO (, O I) 125 − irreducible complexity, the smooth gradient of Mount Improbable. − The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexity − could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin's theory. − Darwin himself said as much: 'If it could be demonstrated that any − complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed − by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would − absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.' Darwin could − find no such case, and nor has anybody since Darwin's time, despite − strenuous, indeed desperate, efforts. Many candidates for this holy − grail of creationism have been proposed. None has stood up to − analysis. − In any case, even though genuinely irreducible complexity would − wreck Darwin's theory if it were ever found, who is to say that it − wouldn't wreck the intelligent design theory as well? Indeed, it − already has wrecked the intelligent design theory, for, as I keep saying − and will say again, however little we know about God, the one − thing we can be sure of is that he would have to be very very − complex and presumably irreducibly so!
Reverted edits by Bushin2008 (Talk); changed back to last version by LyraBelaqua
'''Monotheism'''
'''Monotheism''' is the belief in only one [[god]]. Monotheistic religions include [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], [[Islam]] and [[Bahai]]. Monotheism has been gradually replacing [[polytheism]] over the last two millennia.
==See also==
==See also==
* [[Atheism]] - the lack of belief in gods.
* [[Atheism]] - the lack of belief in gods.