Unweaving the Rainbow

Science is not a democratic process.

Popular or not, if something works, it works, and if it doesn't, it doesn't.

Evolution is one of the strongest scientific theories ever put forward. Darwin could never have conceived of the recent breakthroughs in phylogenics, palaeomagnetism, and Wii. Yet each of these advancements, combined with an ever-growing collection of fossil evidence, have only served to strengthen his position.


Michael Behe doesn't believe Natural Selection can fully account for life's diversity and complexity. He has put forth the notion of Irreducible Complexity, which roughly argues that certain mechanisms are too complicated to be reduced, piece-by-piece, with each intermediate stage serving some beneficial function to the creature. He has proposed several different systems, each deemed too complex to originate from more primitive parts. And each such example has been immediately refuted by a experts in the field.

Not surprisingly, this reflects more on the shortcomings of Behe than of Darwin's and Watson's theories. "I don't understand this, therefore it must be wrong." Such reasoning would spark the end of every branch of math and science as we know it. Let God file your taxes.

Science doesn't believe him. There is simply no argument. He is wrong.

The trouble comes about that his books, targeted to the layman, seem reasonably well-argued. Life is amazingly complicated, and certainly those with no training in the field would be quick to agree that a designer must have been involved.

Ug. It looks like once again, the problem boils down to education. Fuck.