Focus Magazine

S
R
I
N
A W
E R

Y A
0
0
F

D
2 O
How to win an
argument with
a creationist
If you get stuck sitting opposite a creationist in the pub, you might need some
scientiﬁ c ammunition to get you through. Richard Dawkins tells Jheni Osman
the stuff you’ll need to know…
What’s the best argument to use against a stop you running off a cliff. There is a slow, gradual And a self-replicating entity is a pre-requisite for
creationist’s religious views? gradient from no eye at all, through two per cent natural selection, so therefore we can’t use natural
The classic thing is that they think evolution is a of an eye, all the way up to 100 per cent. Every selection, at least in the ordinary sense, to explain
theory of random chance. Any fool can see that if it step of the way, the slight, marginal improvement it. So, to that extent, the origin of life has to be
were random chance it couldn’t work. You’ve only increases your chances of surviving. Creationists a chance event. But chance doesn’t mean that it
got to look at the complexity of something like an are ready to assume that there isn’t a slow gradient. doesn’t have an explanation. The sheer number of
eye to see it couldn’t come about by luck, and for planets in the Universe on which life could have
them that’s a sufﬁ cient argument to say therefore What’s the best case you’ve heard for the arisen entitles us to postulate a very high level of
it was designed. They miss two points there. One is existence of God? chance for the origin of life. You are allowed to
that natural selection is very much not a theory of I just don’t think there is one. I suppose the most postulate that much luck because it only had to
chance. Natural selection is really the opposite of interesting argument would be the one from a happen once. And therefore a theory can even be a
chance, it’s non-random survival. The second point physicist who might say something like, “As far very improbable theory yet still remain satisfying.
is that they think design is a feasible alternative to as biology is concerned, the argument is dead –
chance, which it isn’t. If you think about something Darwin has solved that one. But we’ve still got Have you personally ever changed a
as complicated as an eye, yes, it’s absolutely right the problem of the origin of the Universe and the creationist’s mind?
to say that it can’t have come about by luck, but apparent ﬁ ne-tuning of the physical constants of No, not in conversation. But I’ve known intelligent
equally any god capable of designing it can’t have the cosmos”. There are some half a dozen or so people who, when it’s put to them, will say
come about either. And so the very same argument, fundamental physical constants. Physicists have something like, “Oh, I didn’t really know what
namely the statistical improbability of something no explanation for why they have the value they evolution was. I sort of vaguely thought it was
as complicated as an eye, that they use wrongly do, they just accept that the constants have those something to do with chimpanzees”. They know
against natural selection, can in fact be used values and calculate that if they had different that it means we came from apes, but if you ask
rightly against intelligent design theory. values the Universe wouldn’t work and we them, “Where did the apes come from?” they say, “I
wouldn’t be here. I think it’s clear that this is no never really thought about that”.
What about the intelligent design argument argument because it still leaves open the question I think I’ve inﬂ uenced people in that category,
for ‘irreducible complexity’ – that biological of who designed the designer. who may be well-educated and intelligent, but just
systems are too complex to have evolved from for some reason haven’t given any thought to the
simpler predecessors? What about the origin of life itself, which question of where they come from and perhaps
Creationists say, for example, that the whole eye is an improbable event that requires have simply accepted a religious account, kind
needs to be there before it’ll work. The assumption random chance? of by default. I suspect there may be rather a lot
Y CHRIS MADDEN is that half an eye, or even three quarters of an eye, Yes, the origin of life is an interesting question of them and I would expect to have converted
won’t work at all – you need to have 100 per cent because, unlike everything else about life, which some of them. If you look on Converts’ Corner on
TION B
of an eye for it to work. This is obvious nonsense. can be explained by natural selection, the origin RichardDawkins.net you will ﬁ nd a lot of personal
S
TRA
You can have a very bad eye, which can hardly see of life strictly can’t. The origin of life, for me, stories of people who have been converted, mostly
L
U
IL anything but will still save your life because it will is the origin of the ﬁ rst self-replicating entity. by The God Delusion. „
46 February 2009 www.bbcfocusmagazine.com
Focus 199 darwin2_9RB.indd 46 22/12/08 16:36:20
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 | Page 11 | Page 12