The Blind Watchmaker

Richard Dawkins writes in opposition William Paley.  In 1802 Paley presented his watchmaker analogy as evidence for a divine creator in his book  “Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity”. Paley positioned the complexity of living creatures as overwhelming evidence for the existence of a divine creator; hence Dawkins title "The Blind Watchmaker".

​​

In "The Blind Watchmaker" Dawkins outlines the two key constructs for evolution - (1) No designer exists; and (2) Gradualism.  Evolution stands or falls on these simple constructs; logic is cold-hearted and precise and the corollaries of these constructs are simple. Are these problems awkward problems ?   Maybe; but awkwardness is irrelevant.

​

 

Planning Ahead

From these two constructs we get Dawkins third construct;  “Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection” ^1    This is the central point of evolution.  ......  and ......    “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.”  ^2

​

We shall return to this construct when discussing convergent evolution

​

​​

No Designer Required

Dawkins is on record for saying “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”, and that “The biologist’s problem is the problem of complexity”.  Both quotes come from his book, and the debate hinges on these opening statements; in short Dawkins agrees that evolution cannot be true if a design is required because a design makes a designer is necessary. Dawkins is thus forced towards an alternative explanation; and any alternative explanation will do, as long as it eliminates the need for a divine creator.

​

This begs the question “what is a design”. As a minimum, a design is a list of parts required complete with assembly instructions.  A typical piece of complex machinery has a high-level design that lists the sub-assembles but doesn’t detail how to make them; it simply quotes part numbers.  Each part will, in turn, have a list of smaller parts; this is an iterative process that continues until the smallest screw has bee fully detailed.

 

The interplay between Gradualism and Design

Let’s examine Dawkins second construct, gradualism. Gradualism demands design because the smaller and finer each step taken is, the more information we require. Natural selection doesn't solve the design problem because it simple de-selects, it doesn't assemble; the smaller the step taken the more detailed the process and the greater number of 'duds'.  Eventually one would have millions more dud's than good 'uns, Since evolution envisages all of the millions of small incremental changes worthwhile yet having no way of determining which would finally result in advantageous features evolution has no way of determining which ones are the duds.

​

Using the bicycle as an analogy, we can see that the greater the number of parts we explicitly describe, the longer the list gets.  I'll use the wheel to explain; suppose a kit bicycle was purchased and the design didn't detail anything smaller than its wheels; and suppose that a ready assembled wheel was supplied, we don't need to describe how to make wheels. But a wheel is a large complex component so we can hardly call that gradualism.  Suppose wheels were not supplied in the kit..... 

​

The person assembling said bike could go back to the bike shop for a ready made wheel or could buy the components of that wheel; they’d need to buy a wheel rim, the hub, spokes and a tyre. The tyre has to suit the rim. Since these parts come from different manufacturers, he will need to detail what type of tyre was needed, something that is only possible if standard sizes were to exist. Standards are also designs, so without standards the constructor will have to invent a tyre from the ground up; another item to be designed.   He’d have to do that for all the other parts called down by the wheel specification.  As you can imagine, millions of possible variants are possible so if our wheels are to be develop gradually it takes us back to the need for an extremely details  design specification.

​

In short, if we allow large single step changes we nullify the doctrine of gradualism, if we prioritise gradualism we have to accept thousands of design decisions sub-assembly specifications.  This in turn makes assembly ever more difficult and the design ever more detailed; making assemble instructions every more essential.

 

​

 

 

Conclusion

Dawkins summarises the argument of his book  “The essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale. Whatever is the explanation for life, therefore, it cannot be chance.”

 

 

 

 

1. ^1 Chapter #3

2. ^2 Chapter #2’s opening remark.

3.