richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
W i I Y 1 II F. R F A 1 Vi (.) S T C V. R T A I N L Y IS NO C O D 1 3 7Liquid water is a necessary condition for life as we know it, butit is far from sufficient. Life still has to originate in the water, andthe origin of life may have been a highly improbable occurrence.Darwinian evolution proceeds merrily once life has originated. Buthow does life get started? The origin of life was the chemical event,or series of events, whereby the vital conditions for naturalselection first came about. The major ingredient was heredity, eitherDNA or (more probably) something that copies like DNA but lessaccurately, perhaps the related molecule RNA. Once the vitalingredient - some kind of genetic molecule - is in place, trueDarwinian natural selection can follow, and complex life emergesas the eventual consequence. But the spontaneous arising by chanceof the first hereditary molecule strikes many as improbable. Maybeit is - very very improbable, and I shall dwell on this, for it is centralto this section of the book.The origin of life is a flourishing, if speculative, subject forresearch. The expertise required for it is chemistry and it is notmine. I watch from the sidelines with engaged curiosity, and I shallnot be surprised if, within the next few years, chemists report thatthey have successfully midwifed a new origin of life in thelaboratory. Nevertheless it hasn't happened yet, and it is stillpossible to maintain that the probability of its happening is, andalways was, exceedingly low - although it did happen once!Just as we did with the Goldilocks orbits, we can make the pointthat, however improbable the origin of life might be, we know ithappened on Earth because we are here. Again as with temperature,there are two hypotheses to explain what happened - the designhypothesis and the scientific or 'anthropic' hypothesis. The designapproach postulates a God who wrought a deliberate miracle,struck the prebiotic soup with divine fire and launched DNA, orsomething equivalent, on its momentous career.Again, as with Goldilocks, the anthropic alternative to thedesign hypothesis is statistical. Scientists invoke the magic of largenumbers. It has been estimated that there are between 1 billion and30 billion planets in our galaxy, and about 100 billion galaxies inthe universe. Knocking a few noughts off for reasons of ordinaryprudence, a billion billion is a conservative estimate of the numberof available planets in the universe. Now, suppose the origin of life,
138 MM: «. o n i) !•;the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA, reallywas a quite staggeringly improbable event. Suppose it was soimprobable as to occur on only one in a billion planets. A grantgivingbody would laugh at any chemist who admitted that thechance of his proposed research succeeding was only one in ahundred. But here we are talking about odds of one in a billion.And yet . . . even with such absurdly long odds, life will still havearisen on a billion planets - of which Earth, of course, is one. 69This conclusion is so surprising, I'll say it again. If the odds oflife originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to oneagainst, nevertheless that stupefyingly improbable event would stillhappen on a billion planets. The chance of finding any one of thosebillion life-bearing planets recalls the proverbial needle in ahaystack. But we don't have to go out of our way to find a needlebecause (back to the anthropic principle) any beings capable oflooking must necessarily be sitting on one of those prodigiouslyrare needles before they even start the search.Any probability statement is made in the context of a certainlevel of ignorance. If we know nothing about a planet, we maypostulate the odds of life's arising on it as, say, one in a billion. Butif we now import some new assumptions into our estimate, thingschange. A particular planet may have some peculiar properties,perhaps a special profile of element abundances in its rocks, whichshift the odds in favour of life's emerging. Some planets, in otherwords, are more 'Earth-like' than others. Earth itself, of course, isespecially Earth-like! This should give encouragement to our chemiststrying to recreate the event in the lab, for it could shorten the oddsagainst their success. But my earlier calculation demonstrated that evena chemical model with odds of success as low as one in a billion wouldstill predict that life would arise on a billion planets in the universe.And the beauty of the anthropic principle is that it tells us, againstall intuition, that a chemical model need only predict that life willarise on one planet in a billion billion to give us a good and entirelysatisfying explanation for the presence of life here. I do not for amoment believe the origin of life was anywhere near so improbablein practice. I think it is definitely worth spending money on tryingto duplicate the event in the lab and - by the same token, on SETI,because I think it is likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere.
- 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 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 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
- Page 184 and 185: THE R O O T S O F RELIGI O N 185boo
- Page 186 and 187: T H E ROOTS OF RELIGION 187Breakfas
138 MM: «. o n i) !•;
the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA, really
was a quite staggeringly improbable event. Suppose it was so
improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets. A grantgiving
body would laugh at any chemist who admitted that the
chance of his proposed research succeeding was only one in a
hundred. But here we are talking about odds of one in a billion.
And yet . . . even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have
arisen on a billion planets - of which Earth, of course, is one. 69
This conclusion is so surprising, I'll say it again. If the odds of
life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one
against, nevertheless that stupefyingly improbable event would still
happen on a billion planets. The chance of finding any one of those
billion life-bearing planets recalls the proverbial needle in a
haystack. But we don't have to go out of our way to find a needle
because (back to the anthropic principle) any beings capable of
looking must necessarily be sitting on one of those prodigiously
rare needles before they even start the search.
Any probability statement is made in the context of a certain
level of ignorance. If we know nothing about a planet, we may
postulate the odds of life's arising on it as, say, one in a billion. But
if we now import some new assumptions into our estimate, things
change. A particular planet may have some peculiar properties,
perhaps a special profile of element abundances in its rocks, which
shift the odds in favour of life's emerging. Some planets, in other
words, are more 'Earth-like' than others. Earth itself, of course, is
especially Earth-like! This should give encouragement to our chemists
trying to recreate the event in the lab, for it could shorten the odds
against their success. But my earlier calculation demonstrated that even
a chemical model with odds of success as low as one in a billion would
still predict that life would arise on a billion planets in the universe.
And the beauty of the anthropic principle is that it tells us, against
all intuition, that a chemical model need only predict that life will
arise on one planet in a billion billion to give us a good and entirely
satisfying explanation for the presence of life here. I do not for a
moment believe the origin of life was anywhere near so improbable
in practice. I think it is definitely worth spending money on trying
to duplicate the event in the lab and - by the same token, on SETI,
because I think it is likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere.