Wonderful Dawkins article

[yendi]

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?

I started to select all of the interesting parts of the article, and soon realized that I'd selected about 90% of it. :-) I winnowed it down to two great paragraphs, but the entire piece is (typically with Dawkins) worth reading. If you haven't read The Blind Watchmaker, you've missed one of the great science books of the 20th Century.

Comments

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

Interesting article, thanks!

<rant>
Unfortunately, no amount of logic, evidence or even indisputable proof will ever convince a Creationist / Intelligent-Designist to change their "theory", simply because of the fact that they started with a result and worked backwards to come up with the "science" to justify it.

Whereas if scientists were to discover new evidence that cast some aspect of Natural Selection in serious doubt, they would re-evaluate the theory based on that evidence, and modify the theory if/as needed. Why? Because, that's the Scientific Method, and unlike Intelligent Design, Natural Selection is subject to being tested against the Scientific Method.

Thus demonstrating what I see as the single biggest difference between Real Science and Bizarro Science:

Real Science starts with the data, and then formulates a theory, revising it as new data is discovered.
Bizarro Science starts with an existing unshakable belief, and then looks for data that supports it.
</rant>

[yendi]

I'm with you 100% on that rant.

[celticfeministw.livejournal.com]

Preach on. That's so very true ...

*grumble*

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

I agree with that, but the fertile ground in the discussion/arena is not in trying to sway the already committed ID-ists, but in educating those who aren't yet wedded to either camp. I know some of them are so disgusted with the behaviour of anti-ID campaigners who fall back on ridiculing their opponents rather than using logic to make their case, that they're emotionally inclined to go the other way.

The whole point of the "proper science" (i.e. that which ID is not) position is that our case *can* be made with logic and with hard evidence, so the more we share the evidence with each other and with those are coming in fresh to the debate, the better.

But please, lets not look at it as "fuel for the fight" (as someone below phrased it) against ID - A very narrow and negative goal - but rather fuel for the fire of genuine scientific understanding. It's the failure of schoolroom science classes to get the *understanding* (not just the broad conclusions) of evolution across that allows ID to get a foothold.

[celticfeministw.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link - I can't seem to read enough on the evolution/ID front just so's I know I'm well-armed in ways to argue this with IDers. I can't wait to read the full article when I'm not at work and prone to boss-type interrogations of what I'm doing.

And I think I'll have to add The Blind Watchmaker to my holiday wish list. :)

[yendi]

There's not only that one good article, but it's the intro to a whole bunch of articles on ID that the magazine's running this month. Enjoy!

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

While reading that, I came across the unfamiliar term "Evo Devo". A followed the link from Dawkins' article to an article about Evo Devo, which talked baout wonderful disoveries in the field but didn't actually explain what it meant (though I was guessing by now it was a contraction of "evolution " and "development"). So I Googled...

Here's a prospective syllabus (http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/sgilber1/bio111/bio111seminar.htm) for a course on Evo Devo. Just reading it has already taught me more useful stuff about things I've wanted to know for years, than the last year or so of reading. For example, the list of the 4 ways that the expression of a given gene can actually change:

7. Oct. 18. Gene duplication and homology: Underlying similarities
8. Oct. 25. Heterotopy: Evolution by changing the location of gene expression
9. Nov. 1. Heterochrony: Evolution by changing the timing of gene expression
10. Nov. 8. Heterometry: Evolution by changing the amount of gene expression
11. Nov. 15. Heterotypy: Evolution by changing the properties of gene product

There's rich pickin's here for beefing up my theory of the mechanism of Gallifreyan regeneration... =:o}

[asim.livejournal.com]

Still trying to play catch-up on the reading, but thanks for the linkage! Rich fodder for the fight...and I really should get 'round to reading my BLIND WATCHMAKER copy. *sigh*

[team-tim.livejournal.com]

*shrug* I'm not familiar with the guy's work, but it's obvious he's a talented writer. It's also obvious that he's preaching to the choir with that article, as the article for the most part states "there is evidence" instead of "allow me to present evidence A, B, C, (expounds)," as well as him constantly repeating his point through rephrasing. It reads a lot more like a persuasive speech than a persuasive essay. But that's the English teacher in me talking.