|
I just want to add a bit to the arguments that Nanotech brought up, because I think they're decent arguments that don't deserve the short shrift they've been getting. Nanotech mentions the fine-tuning argument and what I'll call for the sake of short-hand, the 'evolution is impossible' argument. I don't have the science background to make the argument that these work, but I do know enough to say that the objections mentioned are insufficent. Unfortunately, both of these arguments get really technical really quickly, especially the fine-tuning argument.
1. The fine-tuning argument
The most sophisticated versions of this argument revolve around the great constants of the universe. Unfortunately, the only constant I know anything about is the gravitional constant, so I'll stick with that. The argument goes, if the gravitational constant was even slightly different, life, actually matter as we know it, would be impossible. The only rational explanation for this is intelligent design; not that it's impossible that a universe should randomly configure itself in such a way that stars and planets should form, but that it makes more sense to think that the universe was designed in such a way that this would happen.
The main difficulty with this argument, as I see it, is we simply have no idea why these constants are the way they are. So we have no way of computing the odds.
2. The 'evolution doesn't work' argument
This argument comes up quite a bit these days. The best version I've seen revolves around the complex structures that make up human beings. It's not that we have five fingers instead of four or whatever; it's that evolutionary theory cannot explain how something like the eye could have evolved. According to evolutionary theory, the eye must have evolved from some simpler form. But in fact the eye is so complex, and its components have no evolutionary value in themselves, so it couldn't have evolved.
Actually, the example I've seen most often is the flagellum. How did this come about? It just seems implausible that it would emerge randomly as a mutation. Other people have pointed out that the large majority of mutations are harmful, not beneficial. But, not to restate a point ad nauseum, I don't have the science background to properly evaluate these arguments.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."
"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|