I read CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE many years ago. I consider it Dawkins's best work. Since I accept the fact of evolution no less than he does, I have no argument with his explanation of the mechanisms by which improbable evolutionary structures evolved. It is his understanding of the nature of these mechanisms as blind and random that I find completely unconvincing. This review is an elaboration of why.
Among people who disagree with Dawkins's opinions it is common to point out that his views are no less fundamentalist than that of the Creationists he opposes. I am aware that he and his allies do not seem to understand what we mean by this. I shall clarify. In THE SELFISH GENE Dawkins writes that if mankind ever faces an alien race of superior technological development, the most important gauge that mankind has advanced beyond mere savagery will be the theory of evolution. He means by this, of course, the blind and random evolution he champions in his work. To be absolutely certain that thousands of years from now mankind will still believe in Dawkins's selfish gene theory signifies a dogmatic mindset. I think that Dawkins would agree that there was really nothing in THE SELFISH GENE, or in CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE, that was not already implicit Darwin's original version of the theory. In Kuhn's terminology, he was not trying to establish a new paradigm, just polish the one already in existence. In the interest of not being dogmatic myself, I try to be open-minded to the possibility that Dawkins might be right. But my conviction nonetheless is that he is wrong, and the evidence is really not with him.
Whenever somebody opposes the selfish-gene theory of evolution, there are always people who start ranting about how opposed true science is to the pseudo-scientific theory of Intelligent Design, as if these were the only two conceivable possibilities. It is true, as the ID people insist, that evolution is merely a theory; but gravity is merely a theory also. A theory is the best explanation scientists have for an observable fact, and evolution is just as observably factual as gravity. On the other hand, there have been several theories of gravity, which were all the best explanation thinkers had in their times for the fact of gravity. Physicists are quite confident that the current theory of gravity is unlikely to be replaced by a radically different explanation, but not many of them would dogmatically insist that this could not possibly happen. This is true because science and dogmatism are inherently antithetical.
In a brief review of THE SELFISH GENE I pointed out that Dawkins's theory implies intelligent design. I was being deliberately provocative but not facetious. Explicit in the idea of selfish genes is the idea of determinism. Given the properties of subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules, and their original state of motion instigated by the Big Bang, determinism insists that nothing in the universe could have happened differently than it did. Although the indeterminism of quantum mechanics frees the universe from the clock-work determinism envisioned by nineteenth century physicists such as Laplace, since indeterministic events are blind and random, they would mostly just cancel out. A critic of this review pointed out that determinism does not mean predeterminism. What I am sure he meant by that is that it does not imply INTENTIONAL predeterminism. However, determinism clearly does mean that the events of the universe are predetermined by its initial state. Since consciousness is not an intrinsic part of the universe, the fact that the development of life intelligent enough to reflect upon its origins was a necessary consequence of these initial conditions is mere happenstance. That our existence is merely a fluke is so obviously true that to think otherwise is evidence of foggy-brained superstition.
Life relies upon the perfect meshing of highly complex and specifically-shaped molecules. Protein polymers can consist of hundreds of amino acids that must in turn fold up in unique shapes if they are to function correctly. Even just one mistake in this specific sequence means that the protein will malfunction. These proteins are in turn formed by far more complicated DNA sequences that, of course, had no idea that they were forming proteins. For even the simplest life to have formed in the first place, hundreds of these molecules had to have preformed so and interlock perfectly together in order to self-assemble into an unimaginably complex "gene machine" capable of extracting energy from its environment and replicating itself. This is the process that Michael Behe refers to as `irreducible complexity." We do not have to agree with him that this is proof of Intelligent Design, but if I ID and sheer coincidence were the only two possible choices, I would have to go with ID.
The popular explanations for how these complex molecules could have developed in a blind and random manner are frankly so laughably inept that I can scarcely believe they are intended seriously. For instance, one of them informs us that if we looked at the birthdates of thirty randomly chosen people they would form a highly specific pattern that would be nearly impossible to form by mere coincidence, and yet there it is. Of course, this pattern is not required to mesh perfectly with a random selection of birthdays of a different group of thirty people to perform a specific function. Another argument assures us that although a million monkeys randomly typing at typewriters would require far more than fifteen billion years to write one of Shakespeare's sonnets, if each correct letter the monkey happened to type was maintained in its correct position, the sonnet could be written within a few months (or whatever). This experiment has been successfully performed with computers taking the place of monkeys. If this is really supposed to be a model of how complex molecules form, it is obviously a model for Intelligent Design rather than selfish genes. Another argument is that in many cases complexity is often more obviously the result of random forces than a far simpler construct. For instance, a stone cut into the shape of a cube is far simpler than a stone shaped randomly by the forces of nature. There are two things wrong with this. One, the randomly shaped stone is not required to function perfectly with other randomly shaped stones to perform a specific task. Two, the cube could only have been shaped by highly complex organism. Better arguments than these must exist, but these are the ones available on the Internet for the public; these are the arguments that I hear from the students in my philosophy class who are sufficiently intellectual to be interested in the issue.
While Dawkins's explanations of how improbable organic structures, such as eyes and wings, are clearly brilliant, he does ignore the enormous biochemical complexity inherent in these changes. An example I often like to use is that of the fluke worm. In one phase of its life cycle the fluke inhabits ants that must be eaten by cattle. Since ants are naturally stay on the ground they would not ordinarily be ingested by cattle. In order to be sure that they get eaten, the fluke interferes with the ants' nervous system in such a way as to cause it to climb to the top of grass blades that the cattle will eat. This suicidal behavioral change would require several highly specific alterations in the ants' nervous system that must have occurred more-or-less simultaneously. This example is certainly not evidence for Intelligent Design. I at least would hope that a Supreme Intelligence capable of designing such complexity would not be responsible for something so bizarre and ugly. In fact, there is no better argument against ID than the existence of such parasites as the malarial plasmodium -- unless the Intelligence is sadistic and malevolent. But it is at least reasonable to believe that some primordial awareness must have been involved.
A universe that had no awareness of its existence would be essentially indistinguishable from non-existence. The fact that consciousness exists proves that this self-awareness existed potentially from the very beginning. Dawkins insists that this potential was accidental, while I am convinced that it was intrinsic. The overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with the notion of the intrinsic existence of consciousness. However, their disagreement often seems to result from the repulsion inspired by "creation science," which is clearly dogmatic faith rather than science. On the other hand, the fact that science is only capable of exploring the physical universe does not logically lead to the conclusion that only the physical universe has real existence. If consciousness does have intrinsic existence, then it follows that evolution is not blind, but proceeds along lines leading to a level of complexity capable of self-reflection. If this is true, then evolution is at a stage where we are required to be active participants, since most people are more inclined to hide behind comforting dogmatic belief than to struggle to greater self-awareness. Dawkins is wonderfully proficient at pointing out the dogmatism of religion, but blind to the dogmatism of materialism.
|
home
