The Improbability of God.pdf

The Improbability of God

by Richard Dawkins

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 3.

Much of what people do is done in the name of God. Irishmen blow each other up in his name.

Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and ayatollahs oppress women in his name.

Celibate popes and priests mess up people's sex lives in his name. Jewish shohets cut live animals'

throats in his name. The achievements of religion in past history - bloody crusades, torturing

inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors, culture-destroying missionaries, legally enforced

resistance to each new piece of scientific truth until the last possible moment - are even more

impressive. And what has it all been in aid of? I believe it is becoming increasingly clear that the

answer is absolutely nothing at all. There is no reason for believing that any sort of gods exist and

quite good reason for believing that they do not exist and never have. It has all been a gigantic

waste of time and a waste of life. It would be a joke of cosmic proportions if it weren't so tragic.

Why do people believe in God? For most people the answer is still some version of the ancient

Argument from Design. We look about us at the beauty and intricacy of the world - at the

aerodynamic sweep of a swallow's wing, at the delicacy of flowers and of the butterflies that fertilize

them, through a microscope at the teeming life in every drop of pond water, through a telescope at

the crown of a giant redwood tree. We reflect on the electronic complexity and optical perfection of

our own eyes that do the looking. If we have any imagination, these things drive us to a sense of

awe and reverence. Moreover, we cannot fail to be struck by the obvious resemblance of living

organs to the carefully planned designs of human engineers. The argument was most famously

expressed in the watchmaker analogy of the eighteenth-century priest William Paley. Even if you

didn't know what a watch was, the obviously designed character of its cogs and springs and of how

they mesh together for a purpose would force you to conclude "that the watch must have had a

maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or

artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its

construction, and designed its use." If this is true of a comparatively simple watch, how much the

more so is it true of the eye, ear, kidney, elbow joint, brain? These beautiful, complex, intricate, and

obviously purpose-built structures must have had their own designer, their own watchmaker - God.

So ran Paley's argument, and it is an argument that nearly all thoughtful and sensitive people

discover for themselves at some stage in their childhood. Throughout most of history it must have

seemed utterly convincing, self-evidently true. And yet, as the result of one of the most astonishing

intellectual revolutions in history, we now know that it is wrong, or at least superfluous. We now

know that the order and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about through an

entirely different process, a process that works without the need for any designer and one that is a

consequence of basically very simple laws of physics. This is the process of evolution by natural

selection, discovered by Charles Darwin and, independently, by Alfred Russel Wallace.

What do all objects that look as if they must have had a designer have in common? The answer is

statistical improbability. If we find a transparent pebble washed into the shape of a crude lens by the

sea, we do not conclude that it must have been designed by an optician: the unaided laws of

physics are capable of achieving this result; it is not too improbable to have just "happened." But if

we find an elaborate compound lens, carefully corrected against spherical and chromatic

aberration, coated against glare, and with "Carl Zeiss" engraved on the rim, we know that it could

not have just happened by chance. If you take all the atoms of such a compound lens and throw

them together at random under the jostling influence of the ordinary laws of physics in nature, it is

theoretically possible that, by sheer luck, the atoms would just happen to fall into the pattern of a

Zeiss compound lens, and even that the atoms round the rim should happen to fall in such a way

that the name Carl Zeiss is etched out. But the number of other ways in which the atoms could, with

equal likelihood, have fallen, is so hugely, vastly, immeasurably greater that we can completely

discount the chance hypothesis. Chance is out of the question as an explanation.

This is not a circular argument, by the way. It might seem to be circular because, it could be said,

any particular arrangement of atoms is, with hindsight, very improbable. As has been said before,

when a ball lands on a particular blade of grass on the golf course, it would be foolish to exclaim:

"Out of all the billions of blades of grass that it could have fallen on, the ball actually fell on this one.

How amazingly, miraculously improbable!" The fallacy here, of course, is that the ball had to land

somewhere. We can only stand amazed at the improbability of the actual event if we specify it a

priori: for example, if a blindfolded man spins himself round on the tee, hits the ball at random, and

achieves a hole in one. That would be truly amazing, because the target destination of the ball is

specified in advance.

Of all the trillions of different ways of putting together the atoms of a telescope, only a minority

would actually work in some useful way. Only a tiny minority would have Carl Zeiss engraved on

them, or, indeed, any recognizable words of any human language. The same goes for the parts of a

watch: of all the billions of possible ways of putting them together, only a tiny minority will tell the

time or do anything useful. And of course the same goes, a fortiori, for the parts of a living body. Of

all the trillions of trillions of ways of putting together the parts of a body, only an infinitesimal minority

would live, seek food, eat, and reproduce. True, there are many different ways of being alive - at

least ten million different ways if we count the number of distinct species alive today - but, however

many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead!

We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically

improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The

answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a

whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its

predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by

genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. They give rise to

changes in the existing bodily structure. Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A

minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction.

By this process of natural selection, those random changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually

spread through the species and become the norm. The stage is now set for the next small change

in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these small changes in series, each change

providing the basis for the next, the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too

complex to have come about in a single act of chance.

For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from

nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be

written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened

simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically

possible, it is in practice inconceivable. The quantity of luck involved is much too large. The

"correct" recipe involves changes in a huge number of genes simultaneously. The correct recipe is

one particular combination of changes out of trillions of equally probable combinations of chances.

We can certainly rule out such a miraculous coincidence. But it is perfectly plausible that the

modern eye could have sprung from something almost the same as the modern eye but not quite: a

very slightly less elaborate eye. By the same argument, this slightly less elaborate eye sprang from

a slightly less elaborate eye still, and so on. If you assume a sufficiently large number of sufficiently

small differences between each evolutionary stage and its predecessor, you are bound to be abl e

to derive a full, complex, working eye from bare skin. How many intermediate stages are we

allowed to postulate? That depends on how much time we have to play with. Has there been

enough time for eyes to evolve by little steps from nothing?

The fossils tell us that life has been evolving on Earth for more than 3,000 million years. It is almost

impossible for the human mind to grasp such an immensity of time. We, naturally and mercifully,

tend to see our own expected lifetime as a fairly long time, but we can't expect to live even one

century. It is 2,000 years since Jesus lived, a time span long enough to blur the distinction between

history and myth. Can you imagine a million such periods laid end to end? Suppose we wanted to

write the whole history on a single long scroll. If we crammed all of Common Era history into one

metre of scroll, how long would the pre-Common Era part of the scroll, back to the start of evolution,

be? The answer is that the pre-Common Era part of the scroll would stretch from Milan to Moscow.

Think of the implications of this for the quantity of evolutionary change that can be accommodated.

All the domestic breeds of dogs - Pekingeses, poodles, spaniels, Saint Bernards, and Chihuahuas

- have come from wolves in a time span measured in hundreds or at the most thousands of years:

no more than two meters along the road from Milan to Moscow. Think of the quantity of change

involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese; now multiply that quantity of change by a million.

When you look at it like that, it becomes easy to believe that an eye could have evolved from no eye

by small degrees.

It remains necessary to satisfy ourselves that every one of the intermediates on the evolutionary

route, say from bare skin to a modern eye, would have been favored by natural selection; would

have been an improvement over its predecessor in the sequence or at least would have survived. It

is no good proving to ourselves that there is theoretically a chain of almost perceptibly different

intermediates leading to an eye if many of those intermediates would have died. It is sometimes

argued that the parts of an eye have to be all there together or the eye won't work at all . Half an eye,

the argument runs, is no better than no eye at all. You can't fly with half a wing; you can't hear with

half an ear. Therefore there can't have been a series of step-by-step intermediates leading up to a

modern eye, wing, or ear.

This type of argument is so naive that one can only wonder at the subconscious motives for wanting

to believe it. It is obviously not true that half an eye is useless. Cataract sufferers who have had

their lenses surgically removed cannot see very well without glasses, but they are still much better

off than people with no eyes at all. Without a lens you can't focus a detailed image, but you can

avoid bumping into obstacles and you could detect the looming shadow of a predator.

As for the argument that you can't fly with only half a wing, it is disproved by large numbers of very

successful gliding animals, including mammals of many different kinds, lizards, frogs, snakes, and

squids. Many different kinds of tree-dwelling animals have flaps of skin between their joints that

really are fractional wings. If you fall out of a tree, any skin flap or flattening of the body that

increases your surface area can save your life. And, however small or large your flaps may be,

there must always be a critical height such that, if you fall from a tree of that height, your life would

have been saved by just a little bit more surface area. Then, when your descendants have evolved

that extra surface area, their lives would be saved by just a bit more still if they fell from trees of a

slightly greater height. And so on by insensibly graded steps until, hundreds of generations later,

we arrive at full wings.

Eyes and wings cannot spring into existence in a single step. That would be like having the almost

infinite luck to hit upon the combination number that opens a large bank vault. But if you spun the

dials of the lock at random, and every time you got a little bit closer to the lucky number the vault

door creaked open another chink, you would soon have the door open! Essentially, that is the

secret of how evolution by natural selection achieves what once seemed impossible. Things that

cannot plausibly be derived from very different predecessors can plausibly be derived from only

slightly different predecessors. Provided only that there is a sufficiently long series of such slightly

different predecessors, you can derive anything from anything else.

Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the

prerogative of God. But is there any evidence that evolution actually has happened? The answer is

yes; the evidence is overwhelming. Millions of fossils are found in exactly the places and at exactly

the depths that we should expect if evolution had happened. Not a single fossil has ever been found

in any place where the evolution theory would not have expected it, although this could very easily

have happened: a fossil mammal in rocks so old that fishes have not yet arrived, for instance, would

be enough to disprove the evolution theory.

The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the continents and islands of the world is

exactly what would be expected if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual

degrees. The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what we should expect

if some were close cousins, and others more distant cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic

code is the same in all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended from one

single ancestor. The evidence for evolution is so compelling that the only way to save the creation

theory is to assume that God deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look

as if evolution had happened. In other words, the fossils, the geographical distribution of animals,

and so on, are all one gigantic confidence trick. Does anybody want to worship a God capable of

such trickery? It is surely far more reverent, as well as more scientifically sensible, to take the

evidence at face value. All living creatures are cousins of one another, descended from one remote

ancestor that lived more than 3,000 million years ago.

The Argument from Design, then, has been destroyed as a reason for believing in a God. Are there

any other arguments? Some people believe in God because of what appears to them to be an inner

revelation. Such revelations are not always edifying but they undoubtedly feel real to the individual

concerned. Many inhabitants of lunatic asylums have an unshakable inner faith that they are

Napoleon or, indeed, God himself. There is no doubting the power of such convictions for those that

have them, but this is no reason for the rest of us to believe them. Indeed, since such beliefs are

mutually contradictory, we can't believe them all.

There is a little more that needs to be said. Evolution by natural selection explains a lot, but it

couldn't start from nothing. It couldn't have started until there was some kind of rudimentary

reproduction and heredity. Modern heredity is based on the DNA code, which is itself too

complicated to have sprung spontaneously into being by a single act of chance. This seems to

mean that there must have been some earlier hereditary system, now disappeared, which was

simple enough to have arisen by chance and the laws of chemistry and which provided the medium

in which a primitive form of cumulative natural selection could get started. DNA was a later product

of this earlier cumulative selection. Before this original kind of natural selection, there was a period

when complex chemical compounds were built up from simpler ones and before that a period when

the chemical elements were built up from simpler elements, following the well-understood laws of

physics. Before that, everything was ultimately built up from pure hydrogen in the immediate

aftermath of the big bang, which initiated the universe.

There is a temptation to argue that, although God may not be needed to explain the evolution of

complex order once the universe, with its fundamental laws of physics, had begun, we do need a

God to explain the origin of all things. This idea doesn't leave God with very much to do : just set off

the big bang, then sit back and wait for everything to happen. The physical chemist Peter Atkins, in

his beautifully written book The Creation, postulates a lazy God who strove to do as little as

possible in order to initiate everything. Atkins explains how each step in the history of the universe

followed, by simple physical law, from its predecessor. He thus pares down the amount of work that

the lazy creator would need to do and eventually concludes that he would in fact have needed to do

nothing at all!

The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a

biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity. For me, the

important point is that, even if the physicist needs to postulate an irreducible minimum that had to

be present in the beginning, in order for the universe to get started, that irreducible minimum is

certainly extremely simple. By definition, explanations that build on simple premises are more

plausible and more satisfying than explanations that have to postulate complex and statistically

improbable beginnings. And you can't get much more complex than an Almighty God!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Dawkins is Oxford's Professor of Public Understanding of Science. He is the author of The

Blind Watchmaker (on which this article is partly based) and Climbing Mount Improbable. He is a

Senior Editor of Free Inquiry.

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: