Yesterday, Charles Darwin turned 200. Congratulations, you don't look a day over 73. His most famous work,
On the Origin of Species, is 150, and there are still some numbnuts who doubt evolution.
Forgive me my ensuing rant; this is aimed at any of the less scientifically evolved in this audience. Think of it as a "what I would say at a creationist rally were I not afraid to be shot."
Truth is, evolution is all around us, despite the claims of some that evidence is hard to find. I like to point to a few examples in every day life that I find obvious. Genetic diseases for instance. Most of these are caused by mutations in our DNA--something missing, something extra, something blocked off--and mutation is a central idea of evolution. Here is proof that not all mutations are successful and lend themselves to be passed along. That's natural selection at work.
That's not to mention the profound amount of evidence amassed from scientific exploration and the fossil record. While evolution is not a natural law, the preponderance of evidence places it well above a reasonable doubt.
Then there's creationism, the steadfast adherence to the literal word of the Bible which shouldn't even mingle with the words "scientific veracity," never mind be judged on such merits.
On behalf of God, I am insulted that creationists think him too inferior to have been the one to come up with the whole idea of evolution and set it in motion in the first place. If God created all, then he must have created all the rules this universe follows, so it seems rather silly that instead of accepting science and attributing it to the greatness and glory of God, creationists deny science and God's power to create it altogether. Doesn't show much faith in the almighty.
So creationism got shot down over time and up comes this new, specious theory of Intelligent Design. One might also call it Sneaky Creationism because it's basically creationism in sheep's clothing. Not only does it continue to insult God's power, it goes on to insult everyone's intelligence. Intelligent Design is the "theory" that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause." An intelligent cause could be but is not necessarily and maybe not and yet probably, most likely, God. Please ignore the man behind the curtain.
It's interesting to note that one of the primary goals of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement is simply to undermine evolution (through deception, willful misinterpretation, and outright lies, mind you). Indeed, the movement's broader aim is to overthrow materialistic science altogether. Scientists themselves agree that ID is junk science--not testable by the methods of science. Purposefully aiming to destroy other theory is patently unscientific. You can't put things forward as theory which are not based on evidence and untested in every way, shape, and form, and which have at their core a biased pre-determined conclusion specifically aimed at the veracity of another theory. That's not science. Really, it's just stupidity.
Let's look at some arguments:
Irreducible complexity: This theory states that biological systems are too complex to have evolved on their own from simpler things. Basically, because things in nature are so very complex, they could not have come to be through nature. Must be some intelligent agent. Systems (like certain organs for instance) that are composed of many different parts that rely on each other for the system to function must have been created in their final design, because otherwise they would never function at all. Quite the unimaginative all-or-nothing argument.
Point number one: Evolution has had an unfathomable amount of time in which to work. Quite simply, no one can imagine just how long four billion years is, and it is that fact that leads some to think it was not long enough.
Point number two: Who says everything functions well now? The eye for example--one of the most complex organs in our body. It's riddled with problems and imperfections. Ever notice how many people wear glasses? There's blindness and all sorts of wonderful ailments of the eye. The design itself leaves much to be desired; there's a blindspot, we only see well in bright light, the lens can fog up, they grow increasingly less effective with age--heck, they're limited to the "visible" light spectrum. Now look at a body as a whole and contemplate just how many things go wrong with it. This, to me, is proof that evolution is a crude and happenstance procession. Think about it and you'll realize how poor and
unintelligent our design really is.
If we were designed, why weren't we designed better? Is God really such a shoddy workman?
I like the way Richard Dawkins explains it in
The Extended Phenotype. He asks the reader to contemplate a jet engine, but one not meticulously designed with the end purpose in mind. This jet engine is randomly put together piece by piece with no particular aim or purpose; nonetheless, additions that make it more jet-engine-like increase its chances of survival. There's no thought process. Quite simply, changes that detract from its jetness blow it up when turned on and changes that add to its jetness don't, allowing it to live to the next round of changes. The end result, after much time, is going to be a very ugly, illogically constructed, barely workable jet engine prone to malfunction and not even aerodynamic. Just like our human body (beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all).
Point number three: This theory lacks any imagination of intermediate states if they believe a system could only work in its complete stage or not at all. However, with thought, one can easily see that not only could primordial and intermediate changes work, but would systematically lead to improvement through natural selection. Take a fish without eyes. Tends to get eaten a lot, tends to starve a lot 'cause it can't find its food. One mutation makes a skin cell light-sensitive and now fish can learn that food is found in lighter areas, predators in darker areas. Tends to live longer now, have more babies to which it passes the light-sensitive cell. One cell becomes many and fish can detect more changes in light and its environment, now it knows when a large light-blocking predator has roamed into the light areas. Tends to live longer. Another mutation leads to a hard, clear film over the light cells, focusing the light and now fish sees shapes. Now it can distinguish between different foods and different predators, and maybe now it knows that some big fish won't eat it, but will dig up food it couldn't get before. Fish tends to live longer, and so on. Each intermediate mutation that helps it survive leads naturally towards improvement. Each mutation that detracts from survival get it killed, thus tending to prevent those mutations from getting popular. Each step is very small, completely random, and rigorously tested in the field, yet millions of small changes through a sort of process of elimination can lead to something quite complex.
Fine-tuned universe: This theory states that if even a slight change to the many constants of the universe were made, humans would not be able to exist in the universe. Ergo, these constants must have been set precisely by some intelligent creator with humans in mind. This is closely related to the anthropic principle, which states any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our ability to exist in the universe in the here and now.
The thinking on this one is all backwards and particularly arrogant. It assumes all of creation from the perspective of human kind despite the fact we all live on one microscopic speck of that vastness. That's far more arrogant than an ant in Missouri thinking the entire United States was set up just to make his anthill possible.
Let me rephrase the fine-tuned universe from a more objective perspective: Human existence developed within the pre-existing constraints of natural law and could not have developed any other way given the laws at work. We know a theory is invalid if it would have made our existence impossible, because if it were true we wouldn't be here to notice.
It's not that the universe is set up to be perfect for our existence, but that we developed in the only way possible given the laws of the universe in which we exist.
Naturally, if a law were changed now, we would all die. But if the law were different to begin with, it is reasonable to imagine we would have developed differently to suit the law or not developed at all. So no matter how random the set-points of natural law might be, no matter which alternate reality you look at, life (if it develops) has no choice but to follow the rules already laid down.
The fine-tuned universe theory presupposes an intelligent being standing at the beginning of creation, imagining an end result where humans are so-and-so, and then setting up the universe such-and-such to match. Science presupposes that the natural laws came to be such-and-such and through natural processes, humans developed so-and-so as a direct result of the such-and-such laws of the universe--humans developed to match the universe; the universe didn't develop to match humans.
Alright, enough variations on that theme--it's just they all sound so nice and I couldn't bear to choose.
Here's what I love about Intelligent Design though: While its creators ultimately believe God is the designer, they nonetheless leave this intelligent designer a rather ambiguous fellow. Here's my suggestion:
The designers were aliens.
Who's to say intergalactic aliens didn't visit our pretty little marble in space and inseminate it with the bioengineered seeds of life? That might also explain why everything developed in such an apparently well-designed way. IT certainly doesn't rule it out. In fact, it doesn't rule out any flight of fancy fantasy. Because that's all it is. Fantasy.
The universe is a coincidence--it's written into the laws of physics. Every particle is part of the cause-and-effect machine, something far more complex than the human mind can comprehend. That's why it's hard to believe in them. Everything actually is all connected.
To prove it, yesterday was also Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday. Another man whose writing made a lot of arrogant and ignorant people quite angry.
