Why didn’t I do this before?
Ok, I admit it, it was silly. WHY didn’t I go to “THE MAN” before! By “THE MAN” of course I am refering to Richard Dawkins. That noise you hear are all the evangelical christians in the world reaching for crosses to ward off the devil himself.
Dawkins’ explanations are so clear that even the relatively intellectually challanged (like moi) can understand what he’s saying. Consider Dawkins’ criticism of Michael Behe’s idea of “Irreducible Complexity;” rather than put a complex “why the system is not IR” argument on the table, Dawkins simply points out that Darwin was wrong, an IR system does not disprove evolution; IR systems are produced by evolution all the time!
Dawkins quotes the explanation provided by H. Allen Orr of how this can be.
“An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential.”
“The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers…But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential.”
“I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong.”
The next point made is that Behe makes the gross error of using analogies to draw conclusions rather than as simply a way to explain a conclusion. The latter is standard practice; the former is a blatant logical fallacy. Simply because A shares some characteristics with B (a plant is LIKE a factory), doesn’t mean that A shares ALL the characteristics of B or vice-versa. A factory is certainly NOT a living organism; a plant is NOT comprised of steel and concrete. Dawkins uses Behe’s mousetrap analogy to demonstrate this fallacy.
Dawkins’ explanations are so clear that even the relatively intellectually challanged (like moi) can understand what he’s saying. Consider Dawkins’ criticism of Michael Behe’s idea of “Irreducible Complexity;” rather than put a complex “why the system is not IR” argument on the table, Dawkins simply points out that Darwin was wrong, an IR system does not disprove evolution; IR systems are produced by evolution all the time!
Dawkins quotes the explanation provided by H. Allen Orr of how this can be.
“An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential.”
“The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers…But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential.”
“I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong.”
The next point made is that Behe makes the gross error of using analogies to draw conclusions rather than as simply a way to explain a conclusion. The latter is standard practice; the former is a blatant logical fallacy. Simply because A shares some characteristics with B (a plant is LIKE a factory), doesn’t mean that A shares ALL the characteristics of B or vice-versa. A factory is certainly NOT a living organism; a plant is NOT comprised of steel and concrete. Dawkins uses Behe’s mousetrap analogy to demonstrate this fallacy.
- A mousetrap is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
- A mousetrap is a product of design.
- The bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
- Therefore the flagellum is like a mouse trap.
- Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.
WRONG, the conclusion 5 does not follow from 4. The eye is like a camera, but I wouldn’t suggest trading in your oculars for a couple of Kodaks nor trying to take snapshots of the Grand Canyon by blinking. Just because two objects share some characteristics, you CANNOT conclude they share ALL characteristics.
Oh boy, I’m so excited. I think I have a new hero. There are lots of brilliant men that can’t explain jack and there are lots of men that can explain things but don’t know anything worth explaining. Nice to find one that’s both brilliant AND can explain things to the (relatively) intellectually challenged rest of us.
posted by Alencon at 1:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home