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.

[steve-b]

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.

Not at all. One can easily posit that an intelligent designer created libido to be used exactly as Mr. Ruse has used his, or posit that long-term evolutionary success is enhanced by monogamous fidelity. Thus, the "bias" can run one way just as easily as the other.

[r9etb]

And you accuse me of telling "just-so stories!" It is inconceivable to me that something outside of spacetime that is not physical can have a physical cause that arises in spacetime. And I gather that "physical cause" is what you mean by "cause."

We mustn't forget the inconvenient fact that the universe itself seems to suffer from the same malady....

[betty boop]

Be gentle and dumb the "answer" down some

Forgive me, dear hosepipe, but I don't know how to answer your request. I'm not seeing what you have seen. So you'll need to give me some additional pointers....

For some strange reason, I can imagine 5 dimensions, and acknowledge there may be more than 5. That's about as far as I can get at this point. Maybe you will help me see that these 5 actually "reduce" to a smaller number, maybe 3.

Please show me where to look! :^)

Thank you so much for writing, dear hosepipe!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both for your replies!

However, the "observer" in a single dimension universe is the line itself (assuming we are speaking of a spatial dimension). He does not have a temporal dimension in which to identify a point, perform a calculation, etc.

[Right Wing Professor]

Dennett is the kook who thinks that not only do you not exist, neither do your thoughts.

Dennett thinks no such thing. You're a moron.

[Right Wing Professor]

However, the "observer" in a single dimension universe is the line itself (assuming we are speaking of a spatial dimension). He does not have a temporal dimension in which to identify a point, perform a calculation, etc.

If a mathematician solves a problem in 10 dimensions, does he have to become a ten dimensional being to do so?

[RightWhale]

Time is an illusion. Coast had an interesting interview last night where it was divulged that the moon was created 600 million years ago by time travellers from our near future for the purposes of making earth capable of supporting higher forms of life such as our illustrious selves. Now, if time travel is possible, which it is, time itself is not. That is, we are about ready to transcend the illusion of time.

[PatrickHenry]

There are four basic food groups: ice cream, pizza, soft drinks, potato chips.

I keep telling my dogs that there are three basic categories of living things -- plant life, marine life, and dog life. I don't know what it means, but I find myself saying it all the time. Must be profound.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

hosepipe was asking How can any other than 3 dimensions be proven as any other than a mental construct.?

I gave him the simplest and most elegant answer that came to me (at his request).

For Lurkers looking for an animated introduction: Special Relativity

[Dimensio]

But can they hold a candle to all those "scientists" faking the data to advance their careers, lol.

Scientists faking data are the exception. Creationists lying about evolution and science in general seem to be the rule.

[hosepipe]

[ We'll each find out about reality soon enough. In the meantime serve justice: do good to friends and evil to enemies. Merry Christmas! ]

Caution: Santa is watching..

[betty boop]

Huh?

Cultural anthropologists claim that the earliest known settlements of "modern" man are to be found in the Franco/Spanish Pyrannees dating back 37 millenia B.C. Especially notable are the cave paintings found at Lasceaux, France -- which clearly demonstrate a self-conscious artist at work depicting what are thought to be religious themes (birth and death, man's relations to other men and to his environment, awareness of the mysterious in human life, supplicatory symbols invoking divine power, etc.).... Man has "known" about God from Day One....

[Right Wing Professor]

I missed the picture of God at Lascaux. Do you have a pointer to a jpeg?

The unsourced text you posted appears to be wishful speculation.

[betty boop]

We mustn't forget the inconvenient fact that the universe itself seems to suffer from the same malady....

And I gather that is why, as Voltaire half-jokingly said, (paraphrasing), If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. The universe logically requires an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, to launch it. The cause of the universe does not arise in the universe.

[r9etb]

Ya know, dimmie, it's easy to dismiss those you disagree with as "wicked." It's also profoundly dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[hosepipe]

[ Time is an illusion. Coast had an interesting interview last night where it was divulged that the moon was created 600 million years ago by time travellers from our near future for the purposes of making earth capable of supporting higher forms of life such as our illustrious selves. Now, if time travel is possible, which it is, time itself is not. That is, we are about ready to transcend the illusion of time. ]

Timing is much more important than time.. When your timing is off your brain can backfire..
Makeing a God awful noise..

George Noory(radio) is 180 degrees off top dead center..

[js1138]

Dishonest is purjuring yourself at a trial, lying under oath.

[Liberal Classic]

Correction. The four food groups are: glucose, sucrose, fructose, and galactose.

[RightWhale]

George Noori was the last journalist to interview Jimmy Hoffa. Noori's biggest audience is truck drivers. Nothing is more real than trucks. QED

[r9etb]

Dishonest is purjuring yourself at a trial, lying under oath.

Sure. But scurrilous accusations are also dishonest, and I'm calling Dimensio his profoundly dishonest claim.