Wonderful Dawkins article
Nov. 23rd, 2005 09:07 amYet 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.
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.