Cleverly drawing comparisons more or less in agreement with the creationist and/or intelligent design definition of complexity and what appears to be designed, Dawkins sets the stage for natural selection as not an alternative but the answer to the illusion of design. Yet, though he boasts, he provides no evidence or supporting arguments for his claims. In chapter two entitled Good Design, he acquiesces with the eighteen century theologian Willaim Paley and is impressed by the complexity of the sonar system bats use to coordinate themselves in space (and their respective environment). But he merely claims that Paley was wrong with no sound argument or conclusive evidence to support the modern day hypothesis that the job was done in gradual evolutionary stages by natural selection.

Granted that soft tissue (like brain) does not fossilize, we are left with guess work. We must look at various existing species of bats and using their ancestral relationships determine which form of sonar system is preceeded the other. Granted that he cannot show the transitional stages of the sonar system, he still failed to provide even a minimal basis for his confident claims. He only asserts that natural selection is the correct mechanism with no reasoning or supporting evidence by which natural selection could accomplish such an “illusion of design.” Nor does he build a strong case for natural selection in chapter three. The computer program he uses to illustrate natural selection works with a pre-determined goal oriented process - the exact opposite of natural selection!– though to his credit he acknowledges this flaw.

It seems to me that one could never expect a computer program to demonstrate the power of small changes acquired by mutation. Mutations in a grandoise sense, serves as a raw material for natural selection to work on. Considering that each mutation (roughly defined as a change in the genetic code of the individual) is unique and varies in the impact that it makes on the individual’s phenotype (it may be silent, deterimental, or a hox gene mutation with interesting results), it appears to be a mathematical impossibility to calculate the probabilities of each mutation’s effect on phenotype. To go from one stage to the next in the evolutionary process, you must recast the dice and calculate the probability of acquiring a new trait which increases your fitness value.

In the end, we are left with a book that does not satisfactorily makes an argument for natural selection, and with the impression of an “intellectually fulfilled atheist” author who’s arguments fall much below par.

We went over the first six chapters of Dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker tonight; most of us, irrespective irregardless of our views on the evolution/design question, came to the conclusion he presented very little in the way of real arguments. The entire book reads more like a rhetorical exercise than any cogent justification of the assertions that are very freely made.

A brief summary of the major points made, as a springboard for discussion:

Chapter 1: Explaining the very improbable
This chapter sets the scene for later arguments; making the case that creationists aren’t the only ones awestruck by the beauty of nature, and staking out Dawkins’ own position. Our question: Are all biological systems really complex, and is it fair to say they have the appearance of design? Our general consensus was yes, though there was a strong dissent.

Chapter 2: Good design
The main part of this chapter is simply description of the marvelous complexity in nature, and the need for a special explanation, with the argument– natural selection is our watchmaker– limited to the last few pages. But, apparently because it is still meant to be introductory material, there is no backing for any of his statements there either.

Chapter 3: Accumulating small change
Here we look for the long-promised case for natural selection, but unfortunately Dawkins disappoints again. To show natural selection forms complex biological organisms, we have an example of artificial selection– a computer program with very little resemblance to natural selection at all– forming biomorphs that have no real resemblance to living things.

Chapter 4: Making tracks through animal space
We were grateful for some biological examples here, but the chapter would definitely be better with a bit less hand-waving.

Chapter 5: The Power and The Archive
Is Dawkins’ simplifying things to the point where it begins to loose all resemblance to the real world? On a positive note, he again brings in a small dose of actual empirical material in the end, though– again– we’re forced to imagine our own extrapolation between artificial and natural selection.

We’ll go through the rest of Blind Watchmaker during our next class, and touch on several interesting topics: origins of life, constructive evolution and and the highly questionable tree of life. And though we might not be able expect much in the way of interesting arguments from Dawkins, Prof. Provine has promised us a sound defense of evolutionary theory.

In class last night Allen went over inference and his views of the boundaries of science. He gave us the example of an individual coming upon the remains of what appeared to have been a house fire in the past. Without any prior knowledge of the event or eyewitnesses to question, one might infer any of three things:

1) accidental house fire
2) arson: purposeful house fire
3) no fire at all; setup job (for film, etc.)

A tentative explanatory filter with which to distinguish between those three causes:

But he suggested there is a problem from the very beginning. The first question– was this a real fire, or a setup job? can never be definitely answered. Considering a very powerful film crew, for instance, the setup would look almost like a real fire. Extrapolating slightly, given an omnipotent “designer”, could the scene not be exactly the same as what one would expect from a housefire?

Because there is no way of giving a definite answer based on empirical evidence– to which we, as scientists, are limited– we must throw out that whole node on our explanatory filter. Everything above the dotted line, at least, is outside our realm of knowledge.

I had a quarrel with much of this reasoning, though to begin with I ought to make a strong disclaimer that I’m not at all interested in defending “setup jobs”– I think they are highly uninteresting, for one thing, and not worth spending time in. But a “right” or at least convenient answer doesn’t make the logic that goes into an argument sound.

First, can we throw a question out of the realm of science because we will never be able to get a definite answer? Scarcely anything in science will ever be proved or disproved. In general, we don’t look for certain proofs, but simply for empirical evidence that might favor one or the other, so that we can make an inference to the best explanation. If the evidence is not clear, we often make choices based on conventions, such as parsimony.

If we cannot throw it out for lack of a definite answer, can we at least throw out that node for lack of empirical evidence either way? It is true that if the scene was designed (omnipotently) so that there was absolutely no evidence there had been no real fire, science could do nothing with the question. But we cannot assume a priori that all “setup jobs” have no emperical evidence available; there are a great many other possibilities besides an omnipotent designer who works to make things exactly the same. Consider, for example Einstein’s view: “Nature hides her secrets because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse.”; or in another remark: “God is slick, but he ain’t mean.”

So while we can do away with a “absolutely perfect imitation” possibility as an option that could never have any emperical grounds, that is not justification for demarcating the entire first node out of our field of inquiry. In any research project you learn quickly that things are not always as they first appear. What seems on first analysis to be the remains of a fire may turn out on further investigation to hold evidence of a set-up job. What appears to have been designed may in fact be the product of chance and necessity, and what we are used to thinking of as the products of unguided evolution may contain evidence of purposeful design.

Refusing to consider questions is never good practice; we may reject explanations for lack of warrant, but ought never reject the investigation a priori.

Our first class is just finished; a brief summary of today’s topics (to be filled in during the next few days, in later posts):

• Inference, the Scientific Method, and Where We Draw the Line
• Natural Selection Game
• Aristotle’s Causes, and Their Roles in Modern Biology
• Natural Selection: More Discussion

We’ve had some questions on who may join in discussions here; to clarify, everyone who keeps to the ground rules is welcome to participate.

Welcome to the website for BioEE 467, Evolution and Design: Is there purpose in nature? a course being offered in Cornell’s six-week summer session. Our first class is on June 27, so right now we’re just getting set up. Please come back then.