richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
W H Y T H E R E A I . M O S T C H R T AFNI.Y IS NO (, O I) 133can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn'(quoted in Freeman 2002).Another of Behe's favourite alleged examples of 'irreduciblecomplexity' is the immune system. Let Judge Jones himself take upthe story:In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe wasquestioned concerning his 1996 claim that science wouldnever find an evolutionary explanation for the immunesystem. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewedpublications, nine books, and several immunology textbookchapters about the evolution of the immune system;however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficientevidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'Behe, under cross-examination by Eric Rothschild, chief counsel forthe plaintiffs, was forced to admit that he hadn't read most of thosefifty-eight peer-reviewed papers. Hardly surprising, for immunologyis hard work. Less forgivable is that Behe dismissed suchresearch as 'unfruitful'. It certainly is unfruitful if your aim is tomake propaganda among gullible laypeople and politicians, ratherthan to discover important truths about the real world. Afterlistening to Behe, Rothschild eloquently summed up what everyhonest person in that courtroom must have felt:Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answersto the question of the origin of the immune system . . . It'sour defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. Thescientists who wrote those books and articles toil inobscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements.Their efforts help us combat and cure seriousmedical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and theentire intelligent design movement are doing nothing toadvance scientific or medical knowledge and are tellingfuture generations of scientists, don't bother. 64As the American geneticist Jerry Coyne put it in his review ofBehe's book: 'If the history of science shows us anything, it is that
134 "! in: i, o D i) 1.1 U S I O Nwe get nowhere by labelling our ignorance "God".' Or, in thewords of an eloquent blogger, commenting on an article onintelligent design in the Guardian by Coyne and me,Why is God considered an explanation for anything? It's not- it's a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an 'Idunno' dressed up in spirituality and ritual. If someone creditssomething to God, generally what it means is that theyhaven't a clue, so they're attributing it to an unreachable,unknowable sky-fairy. Ask for an explanation of wherethat bloke came from, and odds are you'll get a vague,pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, orbeing outside nature. Which, of course, explains nothing. 65Darwinism raises our consciousness in other ways. Evolvedorgans, elegant and efficient as they often are, also demonstraterevealing flaws - exactly as you'd expect if they have anevolutionary history, and exactly as you would not expect if theywere designed. I have discussed examples in other books: the recurrentlaryngeal nerve, for one, which betrays its evolutionaryhistory in a massive and wasteful detour on its way to its destination.Many of our human ailments, from lower back pain to hernias,prolapsed uteruses and our susceptibility to sinus infections, resultdirectly from the fact that we now walk upright with a body thatwas shaped over hundreds of millions of years to walk on all fours.Our consciousness is also raised by the cruelty and wastefulness ofnatural selection. Predators seem beautifully 'designed' to catchprey animals, while the prey animals seem equally beautifully'designed' to escape them. Whose side is God on? 66THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE:PLANETARY VERSIONGap theologians who may have given up on eyes and wings,flagellar motors and immune systems, often pin their remaining
- 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 126 and 127: W H Y '11IKRK A L M O S T (.: F R T
- 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 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
- Page 176 and 177: T H E R O O T S OF R I: I. I (i I O
- Page 178 and 179: T 11 E R O O T S O F R K L 1 (. 1 O
- Page 180 and 181: THE ROOTS OF RELIGION 181psychologi
- Page 182 and 183: THE R O O T S O F R E L I G I O N 1
134 "! in: i, o D i) 1.1 U S I O N
we get nowhere by labelling our ignorance "God".' Or, in the
words of an eloquent blogger, commenting on an article on
intelligent design in the Guardian by Coyne and me,
Why is God considered an explanation for anything? It's not
- it's a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an 'I
dunno' dressed up in spirituality and ritual. If someone credits
something to God, generally what it means is that they
haven't a clue, so they're attributing it to an unreachable,
unknowable sky-fairy. Ask for an explanation of where
that bloke came from, and odds are you'll get a vague,
pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or
being outside nature. Which, of course, explains nothing. 65
Darwinism raises our consciousness in other ways. Evolved
organs, elegant and efficient as they often are, also demonstrate
revealing flaws - exactly as you'd expect if they have an
evolutionary history, and exactly as you would not expect if they
were designed. I have discussed examples in other books: the recurrent
laryngeal nerve, for one, which betrays its evolutionary
history in a massive and wasteful detour on its way to its destination.
Many of our human ailments, from lower back pain to hernias,
prolapsed uteruses and our susceptibility to sinus infections, result
directly from the fact that we now walk upright with a body that
was shaped over hundreds of millions of years to walk on all fours.
Our consciousness is also raised by the cruelty and wastefulness of
natural selection. Predators seem beautifully 'designed' to catch
prey animals, while the prey animals seem equally beautifully
'designed' to escape them. Whose side is God on? 66
THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE:
PLANETARY VERSION
Gap theologians who may have given up on eyes and wings,
flagellar motors and immune systems, often pin their remaining
Change language