Garvey's Ghost: Black Talk

The Not Too Intelligent

This post will fall way out the ordinary fare of this blog. About the only link this has to any subject previously broached here is that it again critiques the religious who insist upon trying to force the rest of us to believe as they do. Back in August Time Magazine had an article about the "debate" between Darwinian Evolution (nee" Evilution to some fundamentalists) and Intelligent Design (nee: Creationism without mentioning the Christian God-Head). And let's be clear here, this is all about the Christian God head, since I am sure that should the schools decide to teach, say, the Kikuyu version of creation, all parties would be unified in attempting to get the school to stop.

However, this isn't about the relative merits of various religious views on creation, rather it is a discussion on why the ID crowd is, scientifically, wrong. I want to point the reader to one of the arguments given for ID as written in Time:

The eye couldn't possibly be the product of accidental mutations, say Darwin's critics. Sure a bird with sharper eyes might catch more prey and have more offspring, but where did the first eye come from? How could a process of gradual improvements produce a complex organ that needs all it's parts-pinhole, lens, light sensitive surface - in order to work? It's no accident, say Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, that the eye resembles a camera, which everybody instantly recognizes as a product someone designed. "If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck," Behe writes, 'then absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck."

On the surface this is a simple argument. In fact it's simplicity underscored why it is so bad (and why those who need simple, straight forward answers to things would gravitate to it). Instead of trying to argue for the eye, lets instead look at the camera.

Cameras are in fact the result of many many many different and unrelated inventions and discoveries. The person who made the first camera did not invent each and every piece himself at one time. No the camera is in fact the amalgamation of previously developed parts.

The lens: In order to make a lens one must first have discovered how to make glass. Of course to make glass one had to master fire, sand collection, etc. Clearly those who made a lens were not even remotely thinking of a camera, yet the work to make a lens and different lenses were laid down.

"Focusing Tube": For the sake of argument this is the space between the lens and the element that the image is captured on. Early cameras had flexible "tubes'. These accordion type of material used in early cameras clearly depended upon the invention of that kind of paper or whatever material it was (which is another discussion in itself).

The "Picture taking button": This is a whole other thing here. Something has to actuate the 'blinds" to take the picture. This requires vast knowledge in physics including knowledge of levers, mirrors, springs, none of which were invented with the camera in mind as a purpose.

Clearly then, there are many prior inventions and discoveries that went into the appearance of the camera. None of these events were necessarily related nor do they exist in the camera as they existed when first invented. Thus each individual portion had to appear and "evolve' in order to get to a form that would be useful in the camera. Thus the argument that the pieces of the eye (or camera) could not have "spontaneously occurred" is rendered moot since the camera itself can be proven to be the result of random mutations.

But some would say that since humans made each part then such human intervention is evidence of intelligent design. It is not. In nature cells respond to environmental stimuli. We all know about bacteria that mutate to become immune to medicines. In the human, macrocosm, humans are the "environmental stimuli." The camera, as dissected shows how each piece can and was made without some higher goal of creating this one complex thing, but rather each piece was made in, of and for itself. Similarly each mutation, each symbiotic relationship exists in and for itself.

Going back to the eye argument, Why would the light sensitive cells (retina) be situated right behind the pinhole? Why would they exist anywhere else? It could be argued that the cells that make up the retina are there because that is the only place where light enters the body and the cells are protected. The only other light responding cells in the body is the skin, where Melanocytes will produce more or less melanin in response to sunlight. It is interesting that the retina also produces Melotonin which is considered a master regulator of other hormones in the body. It is entirely possible that retinal cells and Melanocytes had the same job but by some mutation the retinal cells were able to lodge themselves in the eye. It is instructive that Melanocytes and retinal cells arise from the neural crest during embryonic development (In humans). But all of this is besides the point, since I'm not trying to explain how (as I am not qualified to do so).

ultimately the argument that this ID supporter uses is weak. Those unfamiliar with the science behind Darwinian Evolution would fall easily to the arguments behind ID. Unfortunately a great deal of the American public actually has very little science knowledge. So it is no surprise that the arguments are even being considered.