richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion

128 THE GOD I) 1" I. V S I O N
zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified,
J. B. S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the
Precambrian.' No such anachronistic fossils have ever been
authentically found, despite discredited creationist legends of
human skulls in the Coal Measures and human footprints interspersed
with dinosaurs'.
Gaps, by default in the mind of the creationist, are filled by God.
The same applies to all apparent precipices on the massif of Mount
Improbable, where the graded slope is not immediately obvious or
is otherwise overlooked. Areas where there is a lack of data, or a
lack of understanding, are automatically assumed to belong, by
default, to God. The speedy resort to a dramatic proclamation of
'irreducible complexity' represents a failure of the imagination.
Some biological organ, if not an eye then a bacterial flagellar motor
or a biochemical pathway, is decreed without further argument to
be irreducibly complex. No attempt is made to demonstrate
irreducible complexity. Notwithstanding the cautionary tales of
eyes, wings and many other things, each new candidate for the
dubious accolade is assumed to be transparently, self-evidently
irreducibly complex, its status asserted by fiat. But think about it.
Since irreducible complexity is being deployed as an argument for
design, it should no more be asserted by fiat than design itself. You
might as well simply assert that the weasel frog (bombardier beetle,
etc.) demonstrates design, without further argument or justification.
That is no way to do science.
The logic turns out to be no more convincing than this: 'I [insert
own name] am personally unable to think of any way in which
[insert biological phenomenon] could have been built up step by
step. Therefore it is irreducibly complex. That means it is designed.'
Put it like that, and you immediately see that it is vulnerable to
some scientist coming along and finding an intermediate; or at least
imagining a plausible intermediate. Even if no scientists do come up
with an explanation, it is plain bad logic to assume that 'design'
will fare any better. The reasoning that underlies 'intelligent design'
theory is lazy and defeatist - classic 'God of the Gaps' reasoning. I
have previously dubbed it the Argument from Personal Incredulity.
Imagine that you are watching a really great magic trick. The
celebrated conjuring duo Penn and Teller have a routine in which