![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Via ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
viergacht:
David Klinghoffer, Intelligent Design (rebadged Creationism) advocate from the "Discovery Institute" invited or sought invitation to debate with Dr Gotelli of the University of Vermont.
Dr Gotelli had quite an eloquent response. As commenter #25 summed it up, "Do some science, then we'll talk."
One thing I've seen a reference to from time to time is a supposed refutation of evolution on the grounds of (im)probability. The argument goes that organic molecules being assembled into complex and reproducing forms is so improbable that the universe, let alone the earth, is simply not old enough for it to have happened.
One could counter this argument a few ways. The age of the universe might not be what we think it is. We don't know, for sure, what the actual improbability is. Heck, we're still working out how living systems, things we have working examples of, actually work. There are likely a whole lot of "Duh! It makes sense now! How'd we miss that for so long?!" moments ahead in biology. But the thing that annoys me is that the argument requires a fundamental misunderstanding of probability.
( About Probability )
Looking at early examples of machines and such, the early designs seem rather primitive and crude. Sometime it's amazing that the first examples that actually worked did work at all. But the early designs were refined over and over until the current design often barely resembles the original.
There are folks who don't seem to realize this and assume that the current design is the only one and it could be no other way. The argument goes that no part can be removed and still have it be the thing it is. If that is indeed that case, then it's an example of good design or engineering. Good design or engineering has been said to be finished not when the last needed thing is added but when the last unneeded thing is removed.
But that doesn't mean that the current thing is the only way it could be. One of the arguments for so-called Intelligent Design is that life is irreducibly complex: you can't remove anything without breaking the thing it's a part of. One example, of something actually designed, is the snap mousetrap which it is claimed is irreducible: nothing can be removed and have it still function. But that assumes that it was always in its finished form.
Microfiction II
9 August 2005 11:15Stanley broke the pleasant silence, "It seems to me ID explains quite a bit, really."
"Wait. You? Support ID?" gasped Roger in disbelief, "You, the, admittedly quite mad, scientist type? You're joking, aren't you?"
"No joke. It's rather painfully obvious, isn't it? Take a look at the world, it's rather messed up. Consider interest rates..."
"Now hang on a moment! What's that got to do with ID, which pretends to be about biology and where evolution breaks down?"
"It's still ID, but fine, biology and evolution. Take the giraffe..."
"Please!" quipped Roger, to Stanley's irritation.
"Giraffes, for example, are tall and have long necks to eat the leaves of trees that also grow quite tall, but getting water or anything from the ground is awkward. That's because a giraffe has only seven neck vertebrae, the same number of neck vertebrae as a human or a mouse."
"You've just made a good point against ID, you know."
"Nonsense. It's very ID. You or I or any halfway competent person would have added more vertebrae and made the giraffe's neck more flexible, at the very least. Evolution generates workable solutions, but those aren't necessarily good solutions, merely 'good enough.' Keeping the same number of vertebrae may be simple, but is rather inelegant. Thus, it supports Inelegant Design quite well."
Roger shook his head in disbelief. "Inelegant? Emily Litella!"
"Who's she?"
"Never mind. You've misheard. They're calling it Intelligent Design."
"Intelligent?!" sputtered Stanley, "Please tell me you're joking."
"I wish I was. 'Inelegant Design' would be so much more appropriate."
Stanley slumped, "I think..."
"Yes, you actually do."
"I think," repeated Stanley, "I need to take a couple aspirin and lie down for a while."
In this followup to a comment in jmaynard's journal, there is a link to a very interesting review of the design of the human eye. But that's not all. There is a series of essays which are quite interesting.
Of the many, a few really got my attention (these are my titles, not the author's):
Science and Engineering (and Theory vs. Conjecture)
Malaria, Sickle Cell Anemia, and Evolution
