Why Darwin Matters (27 page)

6.
Donald R. Prothero, “The Fossils Say Yes,”
Natural History
(November 2005), pp. 52–56.

7.
Isaac Newton (Robert Maynard Hutchins, ed., Andrew Motte, trans.),
Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), p. 273. Originally published in 1789.

8.
In his foreword to Niall Shanks’s book
God, the Devil, and Darwin
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), Richard Dawkins poignantly spelled this out in a clever fictional dialogue between two scientists. “Imagine a fictional conversation between two scientists working on a hard problem, say A. L. Hodgkin and A. F. Huxley who, in real life, won the Nobel Prize for their brilliant model of the nerve impulse,” Dawkins begins.

“I say, Huxley, this is a terribly difficult problem. I can’t see how the nerve impulse works, can you?”

“No, Hodgkin, I can’t, and these differential equations are fiendishly hard to solve. Why don’t we just give up and say that the nerve impulse propagates by Nervous Energy?”

“Excellent idea, Huxley, let’s write the Letter to
Nature
now, it’ll only take one line, then we can turn to something easier.”

9.
For an extensive list of books by Intelligent Design creationists, and of books critical of Intelligent Design theory, see the bibliography.

10.
Stephen Hawking, “Quantum Cosmology,” in Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose,
The Nature of Space and Time
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 89–90.

11.
John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler,
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. vii.

12.
Martin Rees,
Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe
(New York: Basic Books, 2000).

13.
Michael Denton,
Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe
(New York: Free Press, 1998).

14.
John Barrow and John Webb, “Inconstant Constants,”
Scientific American
(June 2005), pp. 57–63.

15.
Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski, “The String Theory Landscape,”
Scientific American
(September 2004).

16.
Victor Stenger,
The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology
(Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1995). Victor Stenger, “Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Us?” in Matt Young and Taner Edis (eds.),
Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism
(New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2004).

17.
See Andrei Linde,
Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology
(New York: Academic Press, 1990); Quentin Smith, “A Natural Explanation of the Existence and Laws of Our Universe,”
Australasian Journal of Philosophy
No. 68 (1990), pp. 22–43; Lee Smolin,
The Life of the Cosmos
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997); and Alan Guth,
The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins
(Cambridge: Perseus Books, 1997). For an elegant summary of this field see James Gardner,
Biocosm
(Maui, Hawaii: Inner Ocean Publishing, 2003).

18.
Stephen Hawking, “The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology: Stephen Hawking 60th Birthday Symposium,” Lecture at the Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge, United Kingdom, January 11, 2002.

19.
Stephen C. Meyer, “Word Games: DNA, Design, and Intelligence,”
Touchstone
Vol. 12, No. 4 (1999), pp. 44–50.

20.
Voltaire quoted in B. R. Redman (ed.),
The Portable Voltaire
(New York: Penguin, 1985).

21.
William Dembski,
No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence
(Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002).

22.
William Dembski,
The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

23.
William Dembski, “The Intelligent Design Movement,”
Cosmic Pursuit
, 1998. Available online at
http://sapiensweb.free.fr/articles/2-dembski.htm
.

24.
Charles Darwin,
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
(London: John Murray, 1859), p. 154.

25.
Michael Behe,
Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
(New York: Free Press, 1996), p. 39.

26.
Ibid., pp. 232–33

27.
Michael Behe, “Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference,” paper presented at the summer meeting of the C. S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University, United Kingdom, 1994. Available online at
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm
.

28.
Robert Pennock,
Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism
(Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999).

29.
Jerry Coyne, “God in the Details,”
Nature
, No. 383 (1996), pp. 227–28.

30.
Charles Darwin,
On the Various Contrivances by Which British and Foreign Orchids Are Fertilized by Insects, and on the Good Effects of Intercrossing
(London: John Murray, 1862), p. 348.

31.
Stephen Jay Gould and Elizabeth Vrba, “Exaptation: A Missing Term in the Science of Form,”
Paleobiology
No. 8 (1982), pp. 4–15.

32.
R. O. Prum and A. H. Brush, “Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird: A Long-Cherished View of How and Why Feathers Evolved Has Now Been Overturned,”
Scientific American
(March 2003), pp. 84–93.

33.
Kevin Padian and L. M. Chiappe, “The Origin of Birds and Their Flight,”
Scientific American
(February 1998), pp. 38–47.

34.
K. P. Dial, “Wing-Assisted Incline Running and the Evolution of Flight,”
Science
, No. 299 (2003), pp. 402–4; P. Burgers and L. M. Chiappe, “The Wing of Archaeopteryx as a Primary Thrust Generator,”
Nature
, No. 399 (1999), pp. 60–62; P. Burgers and Kevin Padian, “Why Thrust and Ground Effect Are More Important Than Lift in the Evolution of Sustained Flight,” in J. Gauthier and L. F. Gall (eds.),
New Perspectives on the Origin and Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of John H. Ostrum
(New Haven, Conn.: Peabody Museum of Natural History, 2001), pp. 351–61.

35.
Alan Gishlick, “Evolutionary Paths to Irreducible Systems: The Avian Flight Apparatus,” in Young and Edis (eds.),
Why Intelligent Design Fails
, pp. 58–71.

36.
A. J. Spormann, “Gliding Motility in Bacteria: Insights from Studies of
Myxococcus Xanthus
,”
Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
No. 63 (1999), pp. 621–41.

37.
S. I. Aizawa, “Bacterial Flagella and Type-III Secretion Systems,”
FEMS Microbiology Letters
No. 202 (2001), pp. 157–64.

38.
Ian Musgrave, “Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellus,” in Young and Edis (eds.),
Why Intelligent Design Fails
, pp. 72–84.

39.
Dembski,
No Free Lunch
, pp. 159–60.

40.
Ibid., pp. 212, 223.

41.
Ibid., pp. 166–73.

42.
Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan,
Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species
(New York: Basic Books, 2002).

43.
Richard Dawkins, “Weaving a Genetic Rainbow: How Evolution Increases Information in the Genome,”
Skeptic
Vol. 7, No. 2 (2000), pp. 64–69.

44.
This point was well made by Kenneth Miller in his book
Finding Darwin’s God
(New York: Perennial, 2000).

45.
Sean Carroll, “The Origins of Form,”
Natural History
(November 2005), pp. 58–63; Sean Carroll,
Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo
(New York: W. W. Norton, 2005).

46.
For examples see Douglas Futuyma,
Evolution
(Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer, 2005).

47.
Douglas Futuyma, “On Darwin’s Shoulders,”
Natural History
(November 2005), pp. 64–68.

48.
Henry Morris,
The Troubled Waters of Evolution
(San Diego, Calif.: Creation Life, 1972), p. 110.

49.
Peter Atkins,
The Second Law: Energy, Chaos and Form
(New York: W. H. Freeman, 1994).

50.
Stuart Kauffman,
The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).

51.
Richard Hardison,
Upon the Shoulders of Giants
(Baltimore, Md.: University Press of America, 1985). Independently of Hardison, and around the same time, Richard Dawkins famously conducted the same computer experiment, as reported in his book
The Blind Watchmaker
(New York: W. W. Norton, 1986), except he used a different phrase—“Methinks it is like a weasel.” Neither one of them knew about the other’s program. Dawkins produced his program in 1984. There is no way he could have known about Hardison’s work because it was not published in any form that would have been available to anyone but the students in our class. And Hardison didn’t know about Dawkins’s program. When Dawkins read about Hardison’s program he queried me. I explained the origin of the coincidence, to which he responded:

Thank you for clearing up the mystery. Yes, the coincidence is fascinating. But it is not all that surprising, and you have spotted that it makes a good lesson in paranormal debunking. Once one has grasped (from Darwin) the paramount importance of ratcheted
cumulative
selection when faced with the Argument from Statistical Improbability, one’s thoughts naturally turn to the famous monkeys who have so often been used to dramatise that Argument. It becomes the obvious simulation to do, to get the point across to doubters. It can easily be done with a little BASIC program, and that is what both Hardison and I did, at what must have been almost exactly the same time, 1984 or 1985. As for the superficial details, those pesky monkeys have always typed Shakespeare. Hamlet is his most famous play. To Be or Not to Be is the most famous passage from that play. I would probably have chosen it myself, except that I thought the dialogue between Hamlet and Polonius on chance resemblances in clouds would make a neat intro: hence “Methinks it is like a Weasel.”

When Hardison read Dawkins’s reply in
Skeptic
Vol. 9, No. 4, he wrote me:

Incidentally, I never felt that the TOBEORNOTTOBE example was entirely original with me. Bob Newhart, the comic, did a very nice skit in which he proposed an infinite number of monkeys working with an infinite number of typewriters, and then he realized that he would also need an infinite number of “inspectors” looking over the shoulders of the monkeys to see if anything meaningful occurred. Newhart then put himself into the role of one of these inspectors, spending another boring day and finding nothing. “Dum de dum de dum . . . Boring . . .
Oh . . . Hey, Charlie, I think I have one. Let’s see, yeah. ‘To Be Or Not To Be, that is the acxrotphoeic.’” I simply realized that Bob’s humor might be a useful way of helping students to comprehend the selective nature of the “struggle for survival.” So you see that my contribution was minimal.

52.
Jonathan Wells,
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong
(Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2000).

53.
Stephen Jay Gould, “Abscheulich! (Atrocious!),”
Natural History
(March 2000).

54.
Isaac Asimov, foreword to D. Goldsmith (ed.),
Scientists Confront Velikovsky
(Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977), pp. 7–15. In his book
Worlds in Collision
, Immanuel Velikovsky proposed a radical theory of planetary history in which the planets went careening through the solar system, impacting one another like so many billiard balls, all in ancient human history and recorded in the myths of peoples around the world, which became the primary data source for Velikovsky.

1.
Michael Shermer, “The Chaos of History,”
Nonlinear Science Today
Vol. 2, No. 4 (1993), pp. 1–13; “Exorcising LaPlace’s Demon: Chaos and Antichaos, History and Metahistory,”
History and Theory
Vol. 34, No. 1 (1995), pp. 59–83; “Chaos Theory,” in D. R. Woolf (ed.),
The Encyclopedia of Historiography
(New York: Garland Publishing, 1996); “The Crooked Timber of History: History Is Complex and Often Chaotic. Can We Use This to Better Understand the Past?”
Complexity
Vol. 2, No. 6 (July–August 1997), pp. 23–29.

2.
Michael Shermer,
Denying History
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).

3.
Lynn Margulis, M. F. Dolan, and R. Guerrero, “The Chimeric Eukaryote: Origin of the Nucleus from the Karyomastigonts in Amitochondriate Protists,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
No. 97 (2002), pp. 6954–59. Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan,
Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Microbial Evolution
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997). Lynn Margulis,
Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution
(New York: Basic Books, 1998). Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan,
Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species
(New York: Basic Books, 2002).