The Myth of the Blind Watchmaker

Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words. --Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)

2006-01-06 -- Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the leading popularizer of the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution today. His books on evolution are widely praised, both by evolutionist scholars and the news media. The Economist called his book The Blind Watchmaker (1986,1996), "As readable and vigorous a defense of Darwinism as has been published since 1859," and a prominent evolutionist called it, "the best general account of evolution I have read in recent years." Not surprisingly, Dawkins is also a radical atheist who gives lectures on British television bearing such provocative titles as "The God Delusion" and "The Virus of Faith."

The Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution is, of course, the modern theory that all life evolved by purely naturalist mechanisms with no supernatural involvement or intelligent design of any kind. According to the theory, all life on earth originated from a single living cell. How that first living cell came to be is a continuing mystery but is technically outside the scope of evolution. The theory says that random mutations of DNA occur, and the mutations that happen to be beneficial are effectively "selected" by nature because they improve the organism's chances of survival. Thus, harmful mutations tend to culled out by death and extinction, but beneficial mutations are propagated through the eons to produce increasingly complex life forms. That, in a nutshell, is how the Theory of Evolution explains all life beyond the first living cell.

Chapter Three of The Blind Watchmaker is called "Accumulating small change." In this chapter, Dawkins attempts to explain how the amazing complexity of living organisms could have evolved by purely naturalistic mechanisms. Obviously it could not have happened in a few large mutations. What is needed is a long series of small mutations.

To illustrate that point, Dawkins starts with a simple analogy of generating a short sentence by typing randomly. He chooses the sentence, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" from Hamlet, which contains 28 characters. If we consider only upper case letters and the space, we have 27 characters to choose from. Now, if 28 characters are typed completely at random, the chances of getting exactly this sentence in one try are one in 27 raised to the 28th power (approximately one in 10 to the 40th power). If we keep trying, but start over from scratch each time, the chances of typing even this short sentence are virtually zero.

Ah, but that is not how evolution works, of course. It does not keep starting over; it builds on what is already established. So Dawkins refines his model to reflect this difference. The resulting simulation procedure is to start with the first random try, then produce copies, with a small random error introduced in each copy (i.e., a different error in each copy) to simulate mutations. The simulation then selects from each "generation" the mutated copy that matches the target sentence most accurately. Lo and behold, the simulation now converges on the target sentence after only a few dozen "generations."

The problem with this little pedagogical simulation should be obvious to the alert reader. Yes, of course it is way oversimplified, but that is not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that the simulation requires a target state that is known in advance. In real evolution, where would such a target state be stored? A pre-specified target state implies an intelligence that is categorically ruled out by the Theory of Evolution. At this point in the book, the alert reader should be wondering in amazement if Dawkins could have really made such a monumental blunder!

After another page of rambling, Dawkins fesses up and admits that his simple simulation is "misleading in important ways," and that in reality, "Evolution has no long-term goal." In other words, his simplified simulation flagrantly violates the central premise of the Theory of Evolution, namely the lack of need for any intelligence. Of what value, then, is his little simulation? It's only function is to grossly and deceptively exaggerate the capacity of unguided naturalistic evolution to build up information gradually. Yes, Dawkins ultimately admitted in passing that his simulation was "misleading" (otherwise he would have made a fool of himself), but how many readers realize it was rigged to violate the most important tenet of evolution?

Dawkins is just getting started. For his next trick, he programs another simplified pedagogical simulation, but this time the output consists of line drawings. He uses a recursive "tree-growing" procedure that starts with a single vertical line, then branches symmetrically into two lines, which each branch into two lines again, and so on. The parameters of the procedure, such as the depth of recursion and lengths and angles of the lines, serve as the "genes." Dawkins defines nine such parameters and shows examples of the resulting figures obtained by varying them. He expresses fascination with the diversity of the resulting figures.

So far his little procedure constitutes a highly simplified analogue of reproduction with genetic mutation, but it has nothing comparable to natural selection. Dawkins approaches that aspect by letting the user select which of the "children" of each generation will survive. Thus, the user (i.e., Dawkins) can guide the evolution process however he sees fit. That constitutes artificial rather than natural selection, of course, but Dawkins points that out clearly and explains why natural selection would be difficult for him to simulate. Fair enough.

What is the fundamental problem with this little simulation? No, the fundamental problem is not that it is oversimplified or that it uses human-guided artificial selection. The fundamental problem is that it simply does not model or test in any way the most important problems of evolution. It models competition for survival, but it completely ignores the more fundamental and infinitely more complex problem of basic biological viability. What if the metabolic system, or any of a dozen other major systems, has a glitch that causes extinction? A million things can go wrong and cause extinction before "competition" even becomes an issue, but Dawkins completely ignores those problems in this little simulation.

In Dawkins' simulation, global extinction cannot occur unless the user somehow neglects to select any survivors at some stage of the game. How could such an arbitrary selection procedure possibly model the problem of basic biological functioning -- eating, digestion, metabolism, respiration, circulation, perception, motor control, etc.? Obviously, it cannot. Nor can it model in any way the problem of a biologically viable transition path for macro-evolution. In the world of line drawings, any figure that can be drawn is "viable." Of what value, then, is Dawkins' line-drawing simulation? As with the earlier sentence-generating simulation, it's only function is to grossly and deceptively exaggerate the capacity of unguided naturalistic evolution to build up information gradually.

Am I trying to read too much into Dawkins' simulations? After all, they are merely oversimplified pedagogical models intended to illustrate that complexity can be built up gradually. The problem is that those models and simulations are able to illustrate the intended point only by violating the basic premise of naturalistic evolution or by ignoring the real problem. They mislead rather than illuminate. The deceptive tactics are rather obvious once they are pointed out, but Dawkins has nevertheless built a hugely successful career and reputation on the basis of such sophistry. Dawkins is either trying to fool others or has managed to fooled himself too with his phony little computer exercises.

How would one go about developing a simple but honest first-order analysis or simulation to test naturalistic evolution? According to the theory, beneficial mutations are "selected" by virtue of the fact that they improve the probability that the organism will survive to reproduce and propagate its genes. The other side of the equation, which is often ignored, is that harmful mutations obviously work against survival. So a key input to even the simplest evolution model or simulation would have to be the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations (neutral mutations will be ignored here because, by definition, they have no significant effect). This ratio is analogous to the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of a radio signal. If the SNR is too low, no radio-frequency filter (tuner) can extract the signal from the noise. Similarly, if the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations is too low, the natural-selection "filter" will not be able to produce biologically viable organisms.

Like most evolutionists, Dawkins never even mentions this ratio. He discusses the overall mutation rate, but the significance of the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations never seems to occur to him. Or perhaps he simply avoids the issue because it does not help his cause. Clearly, the rate of harmful mutations exceeds the rate of beneficial mutations -- people do not deliberately expose themselves to dangerous chemicals hoping to induce mutations that will improve their health! But what is the ratio? Common sense suggests it is probably rather high. Imagine a random bit flip in the binary executable code of a computer operating system (e.g., Linux). What are the chances that it will improve the functioning of the system? Obviously very small. And what are the chances that it will be harmful? Obviously much higher. Perhaps several orders of magnitude higher.

Another important consideration is the degree of harm or benefit that a mutation can bring. A harmful mutation in a critical place can be disastrous, but a beneficial mutation is extremely unlikely to have a huge positive effect. And even if a wondrously beneficial mutation occurred, it would obviously not offset the effect of a disastrous mutation that causes or contributes to extinction.

The other consideration that is essential to an honest analysis or simulation of naturalistic evolution is some kind of estimate of the "sharpness" of the natural-selection "filter." A beneficial mutation may increase the probability of survival and reproduction only slightly (e.g., from 26.2% to 26.3%). The filter is then not very sharp, and it certainly does not guarantee the propagation of the mutation. Given the relative rarity of beneficial mutations to start with, the natural-selection filter may not be sharp enough to "amplify" the beneficial mutations above the noise level of the harmful mutations. The result could be global extinction -- or the absence of any evolution to start with -- which Dawkins' phony models and simulations do not even allow.

Since macro-evolution has never been directly observed either in nature or in the laboratory, a simulation test could potentially be useful. Like many evolutionists, however, Dawkins provides no indication that he has any clue about the most basic concepts involved. Evolutionists have a habit of simply declaring that Intelligent Design is "unscientific," or that "no evidence exists" in support of it, apparently thinking that arrogance trumps common sense. So why would they think evolution even needs to be tested? If a simulation showed that it is not viable, you can be sure they would simply reject the results anyway, or fudge it until it corroborated their preconceived notions. Such is the closed-minded mentality of all too many evolutionists.

In his book Not By Chance!, Lee Spetner presents an illuminating mathematical analysis of evolution. Spetner is a professor emeritus of physics from MIT who specialized in information theory. In this book, Spetner points out that, in order to build up information in small steps, each step must add information on average. But few if any mutations have ever been discovered that add information. Virtually all known beneficial mutations in bacteria, for example, reduce sensitivity to antibiotics by actually losing information. Spetner's mathematical analysis from first principles contrasts sharply with Dawkins' method of working back from a preconceived conclusion (or, equivalently, working forward from the premise of naturalism). And Spetner's analysis demonstrates that the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution is not even close to mathematical viability. "The deck is stacked," as he puts it. But don't hold your breath waiting for evolutionists to concede that a mere mathematical analysis can trump their naturalistic dogma.

Chapter 6 of The Blind Watchmaker is called "Origins and miracles," and here Dawkins addresses the origin of the first living cell. As mentioned earlier, this topic is technically outside the scope of evolution, but it is obviously critical to the notion of pure naturalism. Why should intelligent design be ruled out for evolution after the first living cell if it cannot be ruled out in explaining the origin of that first cell? As an atheistic naturalist, Dawkins cannot concede the need for intelligent design at any stage in the origin and evolution of life. The problem for Dawkins is that the simplest known living cell is extremely complex, perhaps surpassing the complexity of all modern technology combined, and "conventional" biological natural selection does not apply because reproduction does not begin until that cell exists. Modern science is not even close to explaining how the first living cell could have come to be by purely naturalistic mechanisms.

Dawkins is nevertheless undaunted. He spends much of Chapter 6 citing speculation about how natural selection at the chemical level might have gradually built up the staggering complexity of the simplest known living cell. Speculation is perfectly reasonable, of course -- even wild speculation, which is what Dawkins engages in here. He certainly has very little if any actual evidence to support his speculation, but lack of empirical evidence is no problem for Dawkins. By the end of the chapter, he confidently proclaims that, "This chapter has had the modest aim of explaining only the kind of way in which it must have happened." In other words, we have no plausible naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, but Dawkins knows for fact that it "must have happened" without any intelligent guidance. And how does Dawkins know that? Because his faith in atheistic naturalism trumps the empirical evidence, of course.

Dawkins continues to say that, "The present lack of a definitely accepted account of the origin of life should certainly not be taken as a stumbling block for the whole Darwinian worldview, ..." And why shouldn't it? He is minimizing the problem because the lack of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is an embarrassment to his atheistic worldview. The problem is not that we just "don't know yet" how the first living cell originated; the problem (for atheists) is that we virtually know that it couldn't have originated by purely a naturalist mechanism. Yet for some ideological reason we are required to believe that the development of life after the first living cell was purely naturalistic. And if you don't believe it, you will be ridiculed by Dawkins and his followers.

Many great scientists of the past, including Newton, Pascal, Maxwell, Faraday, Henry, Kelvin, and Pasteur, were devout Christians who believed that the job of a scientist is to understand the natural laws and designs of the Creator. In Dawkins world, however, life itself is fundamentally nothing more than a complicated mechanism by which genes propagate themselves, as he explains in his book The Selfish Gene. In the end, Dawkins' radical atheism renders him incapable of objectively evaluating the Theory of Evolution. The fact that such a huckster is so revered today is a sad commentary on the state of modern science.

The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the work of the Creator. --Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

ping to you before the evo nazis get here.

This guys work is pretty impressive, very intelligent and thoughtful........so before you write ID off, actually read about it for a change.

Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ...

Tell that to the child with serious birth defects, or cancer.

So9

I am an evo naz! I am waiting for your challenge! LOL!!!

Where'd you go, Sharkey? I just had a shower, turned on some groovy tunes and was waiting for your first question... ;)

Ok, I'll start. Why do you call us nazis?

Question: Let me ask a question about ID. As I understand it, the premise is that there is an intelligent designer behind creation. Now, does this mean that there is an intelligent designer who created, say the Lemur, through a process that took eons; or does it mean an intelligent designer who created the world and all that is in it in 6 days? In essence, does ID say an intelligent designer basically directed and channeled the process over time, or does it espouse that he created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago (some creationists claim the world was created 6,000 yrs ago).

Which is which? Is ID basically the theory of evolution with an ‘intelligent designer’(read: God) behind it, or is it basically creationism (6 days, 6000 yrs ago) with a different name?

You can't really believe all that stuff about ID, can you? All those models and simulation they talked about in the article are unrealistic.

Don't hate because I am beautiful! ROFL!!!

"Is ID basically the theory of evolution with an ‘intelligent designer’(read: God) behind it, or is it basically creationism (6 days, 6000 yrs ago) with a different name?"

No, ID is not just the theory of evolution with an intelligent designer behind it. That wouldn't make much sense considering that the theory of evolution explicitly rules out the need for a designer.

And no, despite the claims of evolutionists, ID is not *necessarily* creationism either. As I see it, creationism implies ID, but ID does not necessarily imply creationism.

What then is ID? It is the idea that life cannot be explained without intelligent design. Nothing more, nothing less.

Think about what would happen if SETI received an indisputably intelligent message from deep space. It would prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence even if the actual source was never located or identified.

"Is ID basically the theory of evolution with an ‘intelligent designer’(read: God) behind it"

ID says that the 4 forces of physics are insufficient to govern the world and that a fifth force exists which directs all the others. That fifth force is intelligent, so it acts according to whim and is unobservable, except by those that can discern it's presence through the insight of revelation, common sense and similar means of perception.

Evolution occurs, but the hidden 5th force directs it. The extent of direction depends on individual insight and thus, the motivations behind that insight. IOWs, the fifth force acts according to particular individual claims.

"Evolution occurs, but the hidden 5th force directs it. The extent of direction depends on individual insight and thus, the motivations behind that insight. IOWs, the fifth force acts according to particular individual claims."

Small minds think alike.

I suggest you check into the scientific accomplishments of Lord Kelvin, who did not share your cynical view. Or Louis Pasteur.

"Small minds... I suggest you check into the scientific accomplishments of Lord Kelvin, who did not share your cynical view. Or Louis Pasteur."

Your appeal to authority is very selective. It means nothing. Refute what I said.

Dawkins is a transparent fraud. His METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL demonstration, proffered as an argument against intelligent design, is about as perfect a proof of intelligent design as there is. The program he wrote would never yield his intended endstate but for his meticulous pre-planning to get it there.

Are his supporters so stupid that they cannot see this? Apparently so.

"Dawkins is a transparent fraud. His METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL demonstration, proffered as an argument against intelligent design, is about as perfect a proof of intelligent design as there is."

The typing excercise is the creationist/ID claim. It is the arguement they use against evolution.

"The program he wrote would never yield his intended endstate but for his meticulous pre-planning to get it there."

The program was not pre-planned. The program was written according to the laws of nature. Dawkin's model represents reality. The typing model of the creaitonist/IDer doesn't.

I am always amazed at how evolutionists sneer at the notion of intelligent design, comparing it to belief in ghosts and such. Do they not understand the concept of intelligence itself?

Do you acknowledge that intelligence exists? If so, how do you define it, and how to you recognize it? Is your method for recognizing intelligence "scientific"?

It is? Wait, how could that be? Do you mean to tell me that intelligence can be identified scientifically?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.