richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
W H Y '11IKRK A L M O S T (.: F R T A 1 N [. Y 15 NO (, O I) 125irreducible complexity, the smooth gradient of Mount Improbable.The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexitycould be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin's theory.Darwin himself said as much: 'If it could be demonstrated that anycomplex organ existed which could not possibly have been formedby numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory wouldabsolutely break down. But I can find no such case.' Darwin couldfind no such case, and nor has anybody since Darwin's time, despitestrenuous, indeed desperate, efforts. Many candidates for this holygrail of creationism have been proposed. None has stood up toanalysis.In any case, even though genuinely irreducible complexity wouldwreck Darwin's theory if it were ever found, who is to say that itwouldn't wreck the intelligent design theory as well? Indeed, italready has wrecked the intelligent design theory, for, as I keep sayingand will say again, however little we know about God, the onething we can be sure of is that he would have to be very verycomplex and presumably irreducibly so!THE WORSHIP OF GAPSSearching for particular examples of irreducible complexity is afundamentally unscientific way to proceed: a special case of arguingfrom present ignorance. It appeals to the same faulty logic as 'theGod of the Gaps' strategy condemned by the theologian DietrichBonhoeffer. Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-dayknowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it isassumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtfultheologians such as Bonhoeffer is that gaps shrink as scienceadvances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing todo and nowhere to hide. What worries scientists is something else.It is an essential part of the scientific enterprise to admit ignorance,even to exult in ignorance as a challenge to future conquests. As myfriend Matt Ridley has written, 'Most scientists are bored by whatthey have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.'Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists
126 THEI '.> <> I) i> i 1 i S f O Nexult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something todo. More generally, as I shall repeat in Chapter 8, one of the trulybad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to besatisfied with not understanding.Admissions of ignorance and temporary mystification are vitalto good science. It is therefore unfortunate, to say the least, that themain strategy of creation propagandists is the negative one ofseeking out gaps in scientific knowledge and claiming to fill themwith 'intelligent design' by default. The following is hypotheticalbut entirely typical. A creationist speaking: 'The elbow joint of thelesser spotted weasel frog is irreducibly complex. No part of itwould do any good at all until the whole was assembled. Bet youcan't think of a way in which the weasel frog's elbow could haveevolved by slow gradual degrees.' If the scientist fails to give animmediate and comprehensive answer, the creationist draws adefault conclusion: 'Right then, the alternative theory, "intelligentdesign", wins by default.' Notice the biased logic: if theory A failsin some particular, theory B must be right. Needless to say, theargument is not applied the other way around. We are encouragedto leap to the default theory without even looking to see whether itfails in the very same particular as the theory it is alleged to replace.Intelligent design - ID - is granted a Get Out Of Jail Free card^ acharmed immunity to the rigorous demands made of evolution.But my present point is that the creationist ploy undermines thescientist's natural - indeed necessary - rejoicing in (temporary)uncertainty. For purely political reasons, today's scientist might hesitatebefore saying: 'Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weaselfrog's ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I'm not a specialist inweasel frogs, I'll have to go to the University Library and take alook. Might make an interesting project for a graduate student.'The moment a scientist said something like that - and long beforethe student began the project - the default conclusion wouldbecome a headline in a creationist pamphlet: 'Weasel frog couldonly have been designed by God.'There is, then, an unfortunate hook-up between science'smethodological need to seek out areas of ignorance in order totarget research, and ID's need to seek out areas of ignorance inorder to claim victory by default. It is precisely the fact that ID has
- Page 76 and 77: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 71longer based o
- Page 78 and 79: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 73advanced techn
- Page 80 and 81: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 82 and 83: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 84 and 85: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 86 and 87: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 88 and 89: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 90 and 91: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 92 and 93: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 94 and 95: A R G U M ENTS F O R G O D ' S E X
- Page 96 and 97: ARGUMENTS F O R GOD'S E X I S T E N
- Page 98 and 99: A R C U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 100 and 101: A R G U M E N T S FOR G O D ' S E X
- Page 102 and 103: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 104 and 105: ARGUMEN T S FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE 101
- Page 106 and 107: A R G U M E N T S F O R G OD'S E X
- Page 108 and 109: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 110 and 111: A R Ci U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S
- Page 112 and 113: ARGUMENTS F O R G OD'S E X I S T E
- Page 114 and 115: W H Y T II E R E A L M O S T C E R
- Page 116 and 117: W H Y T H E R E A I. M O S T C E R
- Page 118 and 119: W H Y T H ERE AL.MOS T C E R TAINL.
- Page 120 and 121: W H Y T H f ' R i . A L M O S T C 1
- Page 122 and 123: W H Y T l i l - I U ; A L M O S T C
- Page 124 and 125: W H Y r i-i r R r A I M O S T C t R
- Page 128 and 129: no evidence of its own, but thrives
- Page 130 and 131: W H Y r H E RE A 1. M O S T C F.RTA
- Page 132 and 133: I ! T R t AI.M15S I' ('. I R !' A f
- Page 134 and 135: W H Y T H E R E A I . M O S T C H R
- Page 136 and 137: A I. M O S I C 1 R I'A I N M is X <
- Page 138 and 139: W i I Y 1 II F. R F A 1 Vi (.) S T
- Page 140 and 141: W H Y r 11 r u r -\ i. \i o s r c r
- Page 142 and 143: W 11 Y '1 11 !•; R I. A I VI () S
- Page 144 and 145: !' R I ALMOST l' I U '[ A I \ I Y i
- Page 146 and 147: W H Y T H !• R E A I. M O S "I" C
- Page 148 and 149: extravagant God hypothesis and the
- Page 150 and 151: W H Y T H K R K A L VI O S I C E R
- Page 152 and 153: W H Y T H H R B A L M O S T C E R T
- Page 154 and 155: WHY T H E R K A L. M O S T C R R T
- Page 156 and 157: W H V T H t R t A I M O S T C E R T
- Page 158 and 159: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GO
- Page 160 and 161: W H Y T H E R i ; A L M O S T C E R
- Page 162 and 163: T H E R O O T S OF R K 1. i G I ()
- Page 164 and 165: THE ROOTS OF RELIGION 165themselves
- Page 166 and 167: THE ROOTS ()1 ; R fc L I G I O N 16
- Page 168 and 169: T H 1-; R O O T S O F R E I 1 C 1 O
- Page 170 and 171: T H E R O O T S OF R E L I G I O N
- Page 172 and 173: T H I', R O () T S OF R K I. I G I
- Page 174 and 175: THL R O O T S OF R E L I G I O N 17
126 THEI '.> <> I) i> i 1 i S f O N
exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to
do. More generally, as I shall repeat in Chapter 8, one of the truly
bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be
satisfied with not understanding.
Admissions of ignorance and temporary mystification are vital
to good science. It is therefore unfortunate, to say the least, that the
main strategy of creation propagandists is the negative one of
seeking out gaps in scientific knowledge and claiming to fill them
with 'intelligent design' by default. The following is hypothetical
but entirely typical. A creationist speaking: 'The elbow joint of the
lesser spotted weasel frog is irreducibly complex. No part of it
would do any good at all until the whole was assembled. Bet you
can't think of a way in which the weasel frog's elbow could have
evolved by slow gradual degrees.' If the scientist fails to give an
immediate and comprehensive answer, the creationist draws a
default conclusion: 'Right then, the alternative theory, "intelligent
design", wins by default.' Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails
in some particular, theory B must be right. Needless to say, the
argument is not applied the other way around. We are encouraged
to leap to the default theory without even looking to see whether it
fails in the very same particular as the theory it is alleged to replace.
Intelligent design - ID - is granted a Get Out Of Jail Free card^ a
charmed immunity to the rigorous demands made of evolution.
But my present point is that the creationist ploy undermines the
scientist's natural - indeed necessary - rejoicing in (temporary)
uncertainty. For purely political reasons, today's scientist might hesitate
before saying: 'Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel
frog's ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I'm not a specialist in
weasel frogs, I'll have to go to the University Library and take a
look. Might make an interesting project for a graduate student.'
The moment a scientist said something like that - and long before
the student began the project - the default conclusion would
become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: 'Weasel frog could
only have been designed by God.'
There is, then, an unfortunate hook-up between science's
methodological need to seek out areas of ignorance in order to
target research, and ID's need to seek out areas of ignorance in
order to claim victory by default. It is precisely the fact that ID has
Change language