Introduction: The Illusion of Design [Richard Dawkins]

Natural History Magazine ^ | November 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[snarks_when_bored]

Introduction: The Illusion of Design

By Richard Dawkins

The world is divided into things that look as though somebody designed them (wings and wagon-wheels, hearts and televisions), and things that just happened through the unintended workings of physics (mountains and rivers, sand dunes, and solar systems).

Mount Rushmore belonged firmly in the second category until the sculptor Gutzon Borglum carved it into the first. Charles Darwin moved in the other direction. He discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics—the laws according to which things “just happen”—could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design. The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that’s proof enough that it is designed.

No wonder Thomas Henry Huxley, “Darwin’s bulldog,” was moved to chide himself on reading the Origin of Species: “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that.” And Huxley was the least stupid of men.

Charles Darwin discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design.

The breathtaking power and reach of Darwin’s idea—extensively documented in the field, as Jonathan Weiner reports in “Evolution in Action”—is matched by its audacious simplicity. You can write it out in a phrase: nonrandom survival of randomly varying hereditary instructions for building embryos. Yet, given the opportunities afforded by deep time, this simple little algorithm generates prodigies of complexity, elegance, and diversity of apparent design. True design, the kind we see in a knapped flint, a jet plane, or a personal computer, turns out to be a manifestation of an entity—the human brain—that itself was never designed, but is an evolved product of Darwin’s mill.

Paradoxically, the extreme simplicity of what the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett called Darwin’s dangerous idea may be its greatest barrier to acceptance. People have a hard time believing that so simple a mechanism could deliver such powerful results.

The arguments of creationists, including those creationists who cloak their pretensions under the politically devious phrase “intelligent-design theory,” repeatedly return to the same big fallacy. Such-and-such looks designed. Therefore it was designed.

Many people cannot bear to think that they are cousins not just of chimpanzees and monkeys, but of tapeworms, spiders, and bacteria. The unpalatability of a proposition, however, has no bearing on its truth.

To pursue my paradox, there is a sense in which the skepticism that often greets Darwin’s idea is a measure of its greatness. Paraphrasing the twentieth-century population geneticist Ronald A. Fisher, natural selection is a mechanism for generating improbability on an enormous scale. Improbable is pretty much a synonym for unbelievable. Any theory that explains the highly improbable is asking to be disbelieved by those who don’t understand it.

Yet the highly improbable does exist in the real world, and it must be explained. Adaptive improbability—complexity—is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve and that natural selection, uniquely as far as science knows, does solve. In truth, it is intelligent design that is the biggest victim of the argument from improbability. Any entity capable of deliberately designing a living creature, to say nothing of a universe, would have to be hugely complex in its own right.

If, as the maverick astronomer Fred Hoyle mistakenly thought, the spontaneous origin of life is as improbable as a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and having the luck to assemble a Boeing 747, then a divine designer is the ultimate Boeing 747. The designer’s spontaneous origin ex nihilo would have to be even more improbable than the most complex of his alleged creations. Unless, of course, he relied on natural selection to do his work for him! And in that case, one might pardonably wonder (though this is not the place to pursue the question), does he need to exist at all?

The achievement of nonrandom natural selection is to tame chance. By smearing out the luck, breaking down the improbability into a large number of small steps—each one somewhat improbable but not ridiculously so—natural selection ratchets up the improbability.

Darwin himself expressed dismay at the callousness of natural selection: “What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”

As the generations unfold, ratcheting takes the cumulative improbability up to levels that—in the absence of the ratcheting—would exceed all sensible credence.

Many people don’t understand such nonrandom cumulative ratcheting. They think natural selection is a theory of chance, so no wonder they don’t believe it! The battle that we biologists face, in our struggle to convince the public and their elected representatives that evolution is a fact, amounts to the battle to convey to them the power of Darwin’s ratchet—the blind watchmaker—to propel lineages up the gentle slopes of Mount Improbable.

The misapplied argument from improbability is not the only one deployed by creationists. They are quite fond of gaps, both literal gaps in the fossil record and gaps in their understanding of what Darwinism is all about. In both cases the (lack of) logic in the argument is the same. They allege a gap or deficiency in the Darwinian account. Then, without even inquiring whether intelligent design suffers from the same deficiency, they award victory to the rival “theory” by default. Such reasoning is no way to do science. But science is precisely not what creation “scientists,” despite the ambitions of their intelligent-design bullyboys, are doing.

In the case of fossils, as Donald R. Prothero documents in “The Fossils Say Yes” [see the print issue], today’s biologists are more fortunate than Darwin was in having access to beautiful series of transitional stages: almost cinematic records of evolutionary changes in action. Not all transitions are so attested, of course—hence the vaunted gaps. Some small animals just don’t fossilize; their phyla are known only from modern specimens: their history is one big gap. The equivalent gaps for any creationist or intelligent-design theory would be the absence of a cinematic record of God’s every move on the morning that he created, for example, the bacterial flagellar motor. Not only is there no such divine videotape: there is a complete absence of evidence of any kind for intelligent design.

Absence of evidence for is not positive evidence against, of course. Positive evidence against evolution could easily be found—if it exists. Fisher’s contemporary and rival J.B.S. Haldane was asked by a Popperian zealot what would falsify evolution. Haldane quipped, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” No such fossil has ever been found, of course, despite numerous searches for anachronistic species.

There are other barriers to accepting the truth of Darwinism. Many people cannot bear to think that they are cousins not just of chimpanzees and monkeys, but of tapeworms, spiders, and bacteria. The unpalatability of a proposition, however, has no bearing on its truth. I personally find the idea of cousinship to all living species positively agreeable, but neither my warmth toward it, nor the cringing of a creationist, has the slightest bearing on its truth.

Even without his major theoretical achievements, Darwin would have won lasting recognition as an experimenter.

The same could be said of political or moral objections to Darwinism. “Tell children they are nothing more than animals and they will behave like animals.” I do not for a moment accept that the conclusion follows from the premise. But even if it did, once again, a disagreeable consequence cannot undermine the truth of a premise. Some have said that Hitler founded his political philosophy on Darwinism. This is nonsense: doctrines of racial superiority in no way follow from natural selection, properly understood. Nevertheless, a good case can be made that a society run on Darwinian lines would be a very disagreeable society in which to live. But, yet again, the unpleasantness of a proposition has no bearing on its truth.

Huxley, George C. Williams, and other evolutionists have opposed Darwinism as a political and moral doctrine just as passionately as they have advocated its scientific truth. I count myself in that company. Science needs to understand natural selection as a force in nature, the better to oppose it as a normative force in politics. Darwin himself expressed dismay at the callousness of natural selection: “What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”

In spite of the success and admiration that he earned, and despite his large and loving family, Darwin’s life was not an especially happy one. Troubled about genetic deterioration in general and the possible effects of inbreeding closer to home, as James Moore documents in “Good Breeding,” [see print issue], and tormented by illness and bereavement, as Richard Milner’s interview with the psychiatrist Ralph Colp Jr. shows in “Darwin’s Shrink,” Darwin’s achievements seem all the more. He even found the time to excel as an experimenter, particularly with plants. David Kohn’s and Sheila Ann Dean’s essays (“The Miraculous Season” and “Bee Lines and Worm Burrows” [see print issue]) lead me to think that, even without his major theoretical achievements, Darwin would have won lasting recognition as an experimenter, albeit an experimenter with the style of a gentlemanly amateur, which might not find favor with modern journal referees.

As for his major theoretical achievements, of course, the details of our understanding have moved on since Darwin’s time. That was particularly the case during the synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian digital genetics. And beyond the synthesis, as Douglas J. Futuyma explains in “On Darwin’s Shoulders,” [see print issue] and Sean B. Carroll details further for the exciting new field of “evo-devo” in “The Origins of Form,” Darwinism proves to be a flourishing population of theories, itself undergoing rapid evolutionary change.

In any developing science there are disagreements. But scientists—and here is what separates real scientists from the pseudoscientists of the school of intelligent design—always know what evidence it would take to change their minds. One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity’s sake, let’s stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.

Richard Dawkins, a world-renowned explicator of Darwinian evolution, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, where he was educated. Dawkins’s popular books about evolution and science include The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1976), The Blind Watchmaker (W.W. Norton, 1986), Climbing Mount Improbable (W.W. Norton, 1996), and most recently, The Ancestor’s Tale (Houghton Mifflin, 2004), which retells the saga of evolution in a Chaucerian mode.

[snarks_when_bored]

I've enjoyed Dawkins's writing for quite a while, but I'd probably get exasperated with the guy myself were I around him for very long. But he's not a candidate for prom king or sainthood, so I try to judge whether what he says makes sense or not. More of it does than doesn't, in my estimation.

[chronic_loser]

And, as a young man, Darwin was himself a pious believer;

Darwin's defection from Xty had nothing to do with HMS Beagle or Origin. He fled orthodox Xty long before he first said "hmmmmmm" over finch beaks.

[js1138]

Aquinasfan seems to be under the illusion that "laws of physics" are something other than human constructs that describe and condense experimental data. All such laws have limits to the range of phenomena for which they are accurate, and therefore fall somewhat short of being TRVTH.

[dread78645]

> " So the cardinals wanted to fund a mathematical model that had no relationship to reality?" If it helped them to better predict the movements of the planets and stars, absolutely.

And then what? They could develop a missile system to attack scientists?

No. To bring the date of Easter back into conformity with the season.
Copernicus' work showed that the Julian calendar would eventually put Easter into December. This led to the reforms of Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 --our modern calendar: leap-year if divisible by 4, unless divisible by 100, unless divisible by 400.

> He was tried for heresy...
Because he claimed that Scripture erred.

And it did.

However, Cardinal Bellarmine left the Church an "out" by conceding that if proof of the Earth's motion could be shown then scripture would still be correct, -- just the Church's interpretation was wrong.

[Aquinasfan]

This is simply an appeal to emotion.

It's a logical argument. A person who, unprompted, publicly boasts about serial fornication is most likely someone who regards fornication lightly. Most men who sleep around do so for pleasure, and regard their partners as conquests. I have no reason to suspect otherwise with Mr. Ruse.

Therefore, his ability to dispassionatley judge between the theories of materialistic evolution and intelligent design as explanations for human origins is unlikely, since affirmation of ID entails acknowledgement of a Designer of both physical and moral laws, the latter of which would be repugnant to a whore.

Or are you contending that anyone who has sex with more than one person necessarily treats others as disposable by definition?

And raises his sins in an article putatively dealing with biological science? Yes.

BTW that little nugget of yours' Purity of heart and wisdom goes hand in hand' is a pretty wild assertion.

It's empirically demonstrable. Good people make good philosohers and evil people make bad philosophers. See Marx, Nietszche, Satre, etc. OTOH, the greatest philosophers, Socrates, Aristotle, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and St. Albert the Great, were also virtuous people. The books "Intellectuals" and "Architects of the Culture of Death" present an overwhelming case.

Want to tell me what this 'purity of heart' means,

Good. Virtuous.

and how wisdom is not possible without it?

Evil people regard sin as "good" for them. This is false. But from this false assumption they attempt to build a philosophical system that won't contradict their sinful practices. Philosophy based on lies can go in any direction, but never an ultimately good or true direction.

[snarks_when_bored]

I think you'll find that Darwin was still a believer when he embarked on his Beagle voyage.

[snarks_when_bored]

I fear so. Early on, I tried to make that point, to no avail.

[Aquinasfan]

Sometimes 'assumptions', such as the noninterference of the supernatural, must be made to enable certainty of conclusion.

That's a reasonable assumption to make when performing scientific investigations generally, but the assumption should not be regarded as certain since such an assumption would rule out miracles a priori, whereas there exists much evidence for miracles.

Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
Blood of St. Januarius
The Tilma of Guadalupe
Incorrupt bodies of the saints
Fatima
Shroud of Turin
Sudarium of Oviedo

[frgoff]

We don't know many of the details of how life began on this planet.

But we do know the chemical processes required and we know the chemicals required by life require life.

There's a reason smart evolutionists whistle loudly and proclaim the theory doesn't talk about origins of life. The hard, cold, impenetrable wall of physics stands guard there and none may pass.

[js1138]

Speaking of Laws: Godwin's Law alert:

"Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell… And in this hour we sink to our knees and beseech our almighty God that He may bless us, that He may give us the strength to carry on the struggle for the freedom, the future, the honor, and the peace of our people. So help us God."

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith…"

"We were convinced that the people need and require faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

[Aquinasfan]

Maybe you could state for us what you think it is.

Massive things pull things towards them? Inverse square law? Something like that.

[Right Wing Professor]

I read Intellectuals. On first reading I was impressed. On second reading, I realized this was just tendentiousness wrapped around Johnson's prejudices.

Peter Singer, by all accounts, is an exemplary human being. I'd hate to extrapolate from that to an endorsement of his moral philosophy.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"There's a reason smart evolutionists whistle loudly and proclaim the theory doesn't talk about origins of life."

Because it's true.

[Aquinasfan]

Apparently you do not have a grasp of evolution.

I guess not. 12 years of public school down the drain!

[BelegStrongbow]

I am aware that Dawkins says that evolution is a fact in the paper cited at the top of this exchange. Are you aware of that? Or shall we decide that Dr. Dawkins is not speaking as a scientist when he pens an introduction to an evolution textbook for the purported instruction of collegiate heads full of mush? That must be quite convenient.

And common sense always looks rambling to those who lack it.

[snarks_when_bored]

A person who, unprompted, publicly boasts about serial fornication is most likely someone who regards fornication lightly. Most men who sleep around do so for pleasure, and regard their partners as conquests.

Aquinasfan, you don't know whether any of this is true. You're manifesting very little respect for the need for evidence.

[Right Wing Professor]

Massive things pull things towards them? Inverse square law? Something like that.

That's very classical, and there are exceptions. General relativity is a more general way of treating gravity, and it's a theory.

So did God give us GR, or was it Einstein?

[snarks_when_bored]

...we know the chemicals required by life require life.

I don't know what you mean by this. Plenty of organic compounds have been spotted floating around in space. You're not suggesting that they're alive, are you?

[frgoff]

Whistle louder, Dawkins can't hear you.

[Aquinasfan]

You mean, like common law? The laws of grammar?

Yes. The former reflects a universally recognized moral laws (i.e., theft is wrong). The fact that all people recognize the natural moral law as binding on all people at all times indicates the existence of a timeless moral authority, since only an authority can bind someone to a law.

The laws of grammar correspond to universally recognized first principles of reason, such as the law of non-contradiction. Only minds can reason, so the source of eternal principles of reason must be an eternal mind.