Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Of Clots and Clods
As I sat down to write this piece, I put on my glasses. They were designed by an intelligent optician to correct my eyesight, which, acute as it once was, is now - like that of most elderly academics - blurred at best. The lens has become less elastic with time and no longer focuses properly. My specs help, but soon I will need a stronger pair.
Well, as we evolutionists say, that's life. Or, to be brutally frank, that's a hint of impending death, for in the good old days of nuts, berries, and sabre-toothed tigers, I would have starved or been eaten by now. It makes perfect sense: evolution cares only about the next generation; I am too old to pass on genes to that unborn tribe and my failing eyesight is hence of no interest to the Darwinian machine.
That thought is not of much comfort, but at least I have nobody to blame for my plight. But what about advocates of Intelligent Design, the notion that the eye is so complicated that it needed a Designer (quite who is best not to inquire) to do the job? Some of them wear glasses. Do they never have doubts about their astral engineer, who could surely have given them a BMW of a visual organ rather than the Austin Allegro they are stuck with?
Intelligent design . . . began as an attempt to promote creationism without breaking American laws that keep religion out of schools.
Jones goes on to explain that, when it comes to "irreducible complexity":
Darwin, as usual, got it right: part of an eye is better than no eye at all and any slight modification will improve matters until we get a reasonably effective organ.
The ID crew, to use Darwin's own phrase, "look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond [their] comprehension". The first Hawaiians to cast eyes on Europeans were so astonished by their great vessels that they thought their builders to be gods. The ID argument is just the same. It is the logic of ignorance, idleness and incuriosity: I am very smart, even I do not understand this, so why bother to explain it except by bringing in God (if necessary under an alias)?
Jones discusses how sea turtles do rather well with only a part of this supposedly irreducibly complex system and how flies lack fibrinogen, the protein that makes the solid plug in humans, but have another protein quite like it, which is used in their immune system to form a mass around invaders. This similar protein is a perfect candidate for hijacking for use in the cascade.
That, of course, means nothing to Intelligent Designers. Stephen Hawking tells the tale of an elderly lady who came to a talk on the origin of the Universe. Quivering with indignation, she insisted that it rested on the back of a giant turtle. What, the speaker asked, does that stand on? "Young man," she said, "you think you're very smart, but it's turtles all the way down!"
Now, there's a thought: all those wonderful cave paintings were actually the work of bored and rebellious cave-hoodies. I wonder if they had teams going around trying to clean the stuff off until they gave up in disgust. :)
You didn't hear? Not all, but some of it. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article347793.ece
pandora charms outlet
supreme clothing
jordan shoes
ray ban sunglasses
pandora charms
longchamp handbags
manolo blahnik outlet
ralph lauren uk
nike factory outlet
ugg boots
เซ็กซี่ บาคาร่า "
<< Home