The Blind Watchmaker
(Chapters 1 to 5)
Title
The above title of Richard Dawkins’ book is clearly intended to remind us of the much
earlier book by William Paley called Natural Theology which was first published in 1802. In it
Paley uses the example of a watchmaker to show that where we have a design we must have a
designer. However, Dr Dawkins watchmaker is not simply blind, but has no mind. His
watchmaker is simply the blind forces of physics (see page 5).
Credits
It is noted that Professor Michael Ruse has written enthusiastically about Dr.
Dawkins book and his comments appear on the first page. However in the preface on page xvii
he is given credit for having assisted in its production. It would have been better if he had not
commented on the book in the way he has as it lays himself open to the charge of at least to
some extent blowing his own trumpet.
Page
5
Paley is here said to be gloriously and utterly wrong. Personally I can see nothing
glorious in being wrong. Being wrong is ignominious though it may in some cases make us want
to commiserate with those who have been found to be so.
10
A dead body returns to the ground as indicated at the bottom of this page.
However it may be noted that this is not a new thought but what we are told in Genesis 3:19.
14
Arguing that simple things can become complex over time is all very well, but
nothing will ever become something however long we wait. 0 x 100 or whatever is still nought.
15
There is great biological complexity. Without mind (intelligence) it could never
have come into existence. Mind is a vital ingredient. Relying on chance (flukes) would never
produce it anymore than someone suffering from cerebral palsy would win, say, the world
snooker championship by sending the right ball into a pot after striking the white ball fortuitously
on one occasion with the right force and at the right angle.
21
Natural selection cannot be a watchmaker. Selection cannot originate anything. It
can only select from what already exists. The flaw is evident in the title of Darwin’s book “The
origin of species by means of natural selection”.
23
Some bats use echolocation to navigate in the dark. Man using his mind has made
instruments that can do similar things. Why should we assume that bats obtained their abilities
without mind being involved ? Further, bats use their abilities in radically different ways. They
did not ‘invent’ them. They are programmed to use their abilities and to be programmed there
must have been a programmer.
26
In wisdom God has created all things (Psalm 104:24). This means that he not only
created things in an economical way but the things created operate in an economical way. For
this reason the cost/benefit idea in the way bats operate no doubt contains some truth.
Evolutionary methods of bringing things into being are essentially wasteful and involve what
would probably be called trial and error.
27
Bats use a ‘send/receive’ switching technology analogous to that which was
developed by human engineers in the Second World War. Bats developed their system millions
of years ago according to Dr. Dawkins . How they did this is not known. However, by interposing
millions of years it appears that anything can happen, or can it ? By introducing the mists of time
the human mind can be somewhat conditioned to accept any evolutionary scheme. A frog
turning suddenly into a prince would be laughed at, but if umpteen million years are introduced
into the picture it seems more plausible.
35
It is easy to be skeptical about something with which we are not familiar.
However, the issue is always whether the thing is factually correct or not. We have common
sense and when something violates common sense there is usually something wrong with it and
we should be on our guard against accepting it until we can see that it makes sense.
36
Echo-sounding by bats is evidence of good design according to Dr. D awkins. The
bats use the technology, but who designed it in the first place ?
40
All (or perhaps almost all) creatures contain varying degrees of genetic variety.
Some varieties flourish in one kind of environment, while others thrive in another kind of
environment. This is so with the dark variety of moth. It is now generally recognized that this
kind of thing is not really evolution. In any case it is dangerous to extrapolate from a small
change in a creature that it can over time become a large one. The fact that a man of say 90 can
walk across a room is no proof that he could walk half a mile to a shopping center, much less
walk from England to the USA. In the latter case there is an ocean in the way. Dogs seem to
contain, incidentally, a lot of genetic variety which can be used in selective breeding. Presumably,
a Bramany Blind snake which has no male sex contains none. One practical reason for having
two sexes is to produce variety in the offspring. If everyone of us were identical we would
probably not know t’other from which ! We would be dependent on the effect of ailments,
accidents, environment etc. to make a difference.
41
Rudimentary (by this I mean simple) forms may have their uses in some cases.
The wings of an ostrich may have a balancing use, though no good for flying, but other things
like a machine may not work at all until complete. Half a cell would probably be useless and not
reproduce. All living things, even the simplest, have a complexity which is essential if they are to
live and reproduce.
The argument from incredulity cuts both ways. If we are told that one’s personal
incredulity is no basis for rejecting evolution, then it could be equally said that it is no basis for
rejecting special creation. The question is what proof have we that our view is correct. Truth,
incidentally, is often stranger than fiction.
43
Small evolutionary improvements (if there are such) in a particular individual are
not necessarily going to result in an improved species, because the particular individual may not
survive to adulthood. It may die through predation as a youngster or through illness, lack of food
etc. The small advantage that it may have (say, running speed) would not have a chance to show
itself or be carried forward to the next generation. In practice mutations make a creature defective
and if one believes that initially God made everything perfect they must do so. But if by some
peculiar quirk there was an improvement, must we not also assume that by some peculiar quirk
natural selection may sometimes select a defect rather than an improvement or must we assume
that natural selection is infallible ?
44
That the movement of water can have a selective effect is undeniable. However the
movement itself is only the result of the tides, which are the effect of the moon’s (and to some
extent the sun’s) pull. Ultimately it all comes back to the fact that energy exists in our universe.
Energy must have a source. What is that source ? The organization of the universe means that
certain effects are the result of certain causes. But who or what organized the universe in the first
place ?
As a matter of fact there is good evidence that water sorting has had much to do
with the way strata have been laid down and this means that the lowest strata are not necessarily
the oldest. If the water sorting explanation of strata is correct it upsets the generally accepted
geological timescale (the researches of sedimentologist Guy Berthault refer).
50
“Evolution has no long-term goal.” This is presumably because there is no
intelligence at work. However, the whole scheme is flawed. When I went to school we were given
a spiel about the amoeba evolving through various stages until it became a monkey and then the
monkey became a man. This scheme was subsequently modified and it was said that we actually
evolved from an ape; an ape being a monkey that had lost
its tail. Further, when it was realised
that apes were still with us and had not all changed into men (mankind), it was said that we had
branched off the ape - line some millions of years ago. We actually have the same situation in
regard of the amoeba. It is still with us and it is in any case not the simple amorphous lump of
jelly (protoplasm?) that it was once thought to be (see page 116). Incidentally, I know a former
office colleague who does not profess to know anything about the Christian Bible (less I suspect
than Dr. Dawkins) who rejects evolution on the ground that apes are still with us so we cannot
have descended from them.
53
Genes mutate sometimes. The question is what causes them to mutate? If the
mutation results in the loss or confusion of information this will not result in an improved species
but a defective one. The fundamental question that evolutionists have to answer is what causes
new or improved information to appear in the genome. Saying it is chance is really saying it is
nothing. When I was a child and spoke of luck I was told that there is no such thing as luck
(chance). It is only something that happens for reasons which we do not know. It is not
something we have sought to make happen. In fact Dr. Dawkins has himself said elsewhere that
chance is just a word expressing ignorance (The Selfish Gene page 218).
55
There is a danger of making evolution refer mainly to physical form, whereas
evolution if it takes place at all must cover all kinds of other things, such as mental abilities,
instincts, habits, habitat, organization, activities and life span. What is found in the rocks largely
shows form. Changes in other areas, if there are any, become even more conjectural.
57
There is a danger in supposing that something is evolving because it has become
bigger, faster, longer, taller etc. However this does not really touch the crux of the issue, which is
how can a creature obtain quite new features ? A hedgehog has quite different features from a
cow or a lion. How did it get them ? Other known spiny creatures are considered quite unrelated
to hedgehogs. How then did spines evolve ? It is all very easy to say that the existence of spines
in quite unrelated creatures and plants is a matter of convergent evolution. This seems too much
like adapting the theory of evolution to fit the facts. It may be pointed out that one would expect,
if evolution had taken place, that there would be a build up of features on a certain line, whereas
in fact similar features appear, apparently randomly, in all kinds of creatures otherwise quite
distinct. A good reason for thinking that evolution has not really taken place. Taken to an
extreme, convergent evolution could mean that each creature and plant evolved independently of
others, so that we have, not an evolutionary tree, or bush, but evolutionary grasses, each kind
having emerged directly from the root. This would be moving in the creationist’s direction, for
independent evolution is not far removed from special creation, only that it takes more time.
59
We have often been told that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We may say we
have been programmed to appreciate beauty. To what extent an animal can appreciate it, it would
be very difficult (or maybe, impossible) to determine. Symmetry is normally appreciated.
As to evolution, it is supposed to produce more variety and more complexity.
However, if it simply leads to a simpler type being replaced by a more sophisticated one there
would be no increase in variety.
It must, of course, be borne in mind that a computer will simply produce pictures
not living things and therefore any simulation on a computer must be used with caution. In any
case a mind was involved in making the computer and program in the first place, and it needs a
person with a mind to operate it. It is therefore a form of creation.
63
“Bees in the past caused the evolution of bee-orchids”. The question is: Did they ?
An evolutionist would naturally assume they did, but where is the proof ? They must have done,
would be no valid answer. It could be reasonably argued that bee-orchids exist because of the
similarities in the genetic makeup of all organisms. Plant life has comparable forms etc to animal
life. There is the branching of trees as there is the branching of antlers; there is a kind of milk in
coconuts as there is in mammals; and there is a substance akin to ivory in the plant world, and so
on.
72
If evolution took place only by very small stages, the changes would probably not
make any significant difference to the organism and would not therefore make any significant
difference to its survival ability. If the changes were too large the ability of the organism to mate
with an unchanged organism could be affected and as a result the new improved version would
not reproduce.
78
If we think of the human eye or any other complex living structure as having
evolved from something simpler the question arises as to how it could possibly evolve further,
and if it did into what. Apes, we have sometimes been told, are not evolving towards humans but
to something more ape-like. However, apes are apes and if apes changed significantly they would
no longer really be apes but something else. Most creationists would however hold that
everything was made perfect in the first place (Genesis 1:31) and any changes other than the built
in ability of a creature to adapt to a change in its environment would be downhill. (Hebrews 1:10-
12).
79
“The necessary mutations are almost bound to be forthcoming”. Why ? Why
should mutations come forth at all ? If mutations are genetic mistakes, they are only likely to take
place if there is some defect in the environment, that is, they are acted upon by something
deleterious. If they are deliberately acted upon to improve them, then we are bringing, in effect,
intelligence into the equation, which is what the evolutionist seems to want to keep out.
81
If a person has no eye lenses as in the example given on this page he or she will
not be able to see unless wearing glasses. Glasses, however, did not come into existence by
natural processes but were made by an intelligent person.
It may be noted that Dr. Dawkins is a zoologist, whereas Stephen Jay Gould is a
palaeontologist . This no doubt has a bearing on why professor Gould is not in agreement with
Dr. Dawkins in his gradualist thinking because the paleontological (i.e.fossil) evidence does not
support it. Dr. Dawkins on the other hand cannot conceive that evolution can take place in jumps
for then it really ceases to be an evolutionary process, but rather a revolutionary one.
84
Certainly defective vision is better than no vision at all, but an eye without an optic
nerve would be of no use or an optic nerve without an eye. However primitive the optic nerve (or
something similar) and however primitive the eye, they would both need to have come into
existence together to be of any use. A camera however primitive requires certain parts before it
will work. A damaged camera may take a picture of sorts, but without an aperture and light
sensitive paper there would be nothing to develop.
85
Certainly there are simple and relatively simple eye systems in the animal world as
well as complex ones. This would tell us that the complex ones cannot be assumed to have
evolved from simple ones, else why do we still have simple ones ? This is a particularly acute
problem where there is no ground for thinking that a creature with a simple system such as the
Nautilus is something recently ‘evolved’.
86
As is pointed out there are a number of different eye systems and because of the
diverse types of creatures in which they are found there must have been a lot of independent
evolution. This raises the question as to how we should determine evolutionary descent (or
should we say ascent ?). General form seems to determine this to most minds, as my Mother said
once when we were at the London zoo and looking at the great apes: “I suppose that’s why they
think we came from apes, because we look like them”. One can suppose that palaeontology may
have some say in the matter, but one does wonder if elephants or dolphins looked more like us
they would have been said to be close relatives to us. After all, they have some features similar to
ourselves which apes have not. I don’t think I need to spell the similarities out here.
87
It is not multiplying existing things, making them larger, smaller, taller etc. that
worries non-evolutionists, but the coming into existence of completely new structures. After all,
human beings vary in size shape etc. and this may not be entirely due to their genes, but to other
factors such as their food intake, the environment in which they live and the kind of work they
do, not to mention their age and the effect of illnesses.
90
The fact that there are gradations existing today militates against the idea that
natural selection drives out the less sophisticated, for they exist side by side. The fact is, each
creature has, what we may call its survival kit, else it would not survive. There is a balance in
nature which a significant change in a creature’s make up could upset. As we know, bringing a
creature from America to Europe which is not indigenous to Europe can result in the driving out
of the existing species. I am thinking of the grey squirrel driving out the red, but there are other
examples around the world. What we call natural selection is really just the stronger overcoming
the weaker and if we consider that everything was made perfect in the first place, all it does is
overcome defective specimens in the long run.
If 5% flight efficiency is better than no flight at all, why does not every creature
develop organs of flight, in the same way that all sophisticated creatures have ‘developed’ sight
organs ?
91
If some flat fish are monstrosities in our eyes, and if creatures evolve in the way
that it is supposed certain flat fish did, why are not all creatures similarly in some way
monstrosities ? Further, if evolution has to start with something, as Dr Dawkins says, how did the
something come to be in the first place ?
92
Some creatures may appear twisted and perverted to us, but if we assume they
are, it may be pointed out that the cause of the twisting and perverting is no doubt due to genetic
defects which have been caused by such things as the Chernobyl atomic disaster. This, I
understand caused distortions in the growth of the plant life in the area of the reactor.
98
Anyone would think from the language used, that electric fish “hit upon (their)
ingenious method of navigation” by some cleverness in themselves. The trouble is that once we
get away from the idea of a creator we consciously or subconsciously introduce the idea of
intelligence into the creatures themselves or their genes. Further, natural selection, becomes a
power in itself (see page 94).
101
The theory of evolution would collapse if the time scale on which it is dependent
was found to be a long way out, that is, much shorter than it is assumed to be. However, one
must assume that the earth during the supposed vast periods of man’s existence upon it was
largely unaffected by such existence, else why have not, for instance, the mineral reserves in the
earth been long since used up ? One must assume that during the majority of mankind ’s
existence he had not the intelligence or inclination to exploit the earth’s resources.
102
Primitive mammals are spoken of, but what does this mean ? Are we to assume
that the first mammals were in some way inferior to those now existing ? They were certainly not
all smaller. If they were different in size they were apparently still capable of being identified with
creatures living today (e.g. guinea pig and rhinoceros), though some species may have died out.
After all, species are dying out today pretty rapidly. If the loss of species continues at its current
rate pretty well all species will have died out in thousands, rather than millions, of years. Perhaps
we should only be left with such creatures as rats and sparrows which have a varied habitat and
diet !
103
Horse locomotion is said to be “probably for reasons of historical accident”. Note
the guesswork involved in this statement and in many others in the book. This guesswork is
necessary because we were not around to witness the ‘historical accident’ and many of the other
changes that must have taken place, if evolution is true (see for instance page 102: “probably
nocturnal” and “could have evolved”). Dr. Dawkins appears to be convinced that evolution has
taken place, though he may have doubt about the details.
107
The theory of evolution involves assuming that vast amounts of independent but
convergent evolution have taken place. It is really the only way to force the evidence to fit the
theory.
112
Yes, we were told about protoplasm when I was at school, but the term has
dropped out of use. Now we are taught about genes, chromosomes, DNA, RNA and so on.
Living things are said to contain information in a coded form. Letters are put together in a form
which is nonrandom. All this suggests there was a mind at work in the setting up of this database,
if we may call it that. If the nonrandom sequences were coming from outer-space we would be
told that they must be coming from intelligent beings, but the nonrandom sequences found in
genes are said to have originated by mutations, that is, mistakes. It is therefore not surprising that
more and more people nowadays are becoming sceptical of the theory of evolution by natural
selection. One wonders whether Dr. Dawkins would regard these critical comments as
nonrandom sequences, that is, something coming from an intelligent being ! (Please excuse my
sarcasm!)
116
What is sometimes called junk DNA almost certainly has a purpose. It is probably
just that we don’t understand it yet. There may be cushioning, possibly also the remains of
genetic mistakes, but one would need a geneticist to look into the matter closely to get a definitive
answer.
117
“DNA is not altered during (an) individual’s lifetime, except by very rare random
deterioration”. Dr Dawkins here admits to very rare deterioration, but what about rare
improvements. Are there never such things during an individual’s lifetime. If there are not, surely
one must be allowed to doubt that there are ever such genetic improvements.
118
That we have a good deal in common with chimps no one I think denies, but it is
remarkable that we have only 46 chromosomes to the chimps 48. There does not appear to be
any evolutionary increase in complexity here, but rather the reverse.
119
The number of chromosomes only changes “once in a blue moon”. In other
words change is so rare that in practice we can assume it does not take place, though because we
have a different number of chromosomes from chimps Dr Dawkins has to assume that a change
in number has taken place because he believes we share a common ancestor with chimps.
Further, what about other living things ? Do not the number of chromosomes vary from species
to species ?
120
“The whole translation, from strictly sequential DNA ROM to precisely invariant
three-dimensional protein shape, is a remarkable feat of digital information technology”. One
would say Amen to this, but how then did all this come about without ‘mind’ being involved.
After all, ‘mind’ is involved in all human technology.
123
“The histone H4 gene” has apparently been copied unchanged for, according to
Dr Dawkins, 1.5 billion years. If this is so, surely we are justified in being sceptical that the vast
number of genetic changes that must have taken place since life began in the primeval soup or
whatever, probably never took place, or are we bound to accept that they must have done,
because any other explanation of how we came into existence than genetic evolution cannot be
countenanced.
124
“The probability of any particular letter being miscopied on any one copying
occasion turns out to be a little more than one in a billion”. Amazing isn’t it ? Such evidence of
stability makes one wonder whether Dr Dawkins isn’t talking with his tongue in his cheek when
he advocates evolution honed by natural selection as the reason for the enormous diversity of
flora and fauna found on the face of this planet.
125
“Most of natural selection is concerned with preventing evolutionary change
rather than with driving it”. Yes, what we call natural selection is normally the weeding out of
defective specimens because they are unable to keep themselves alive. This may be for many
reasons such as the inability to avoid predators, the inability to get food, a tendency to succumb
to disease and so on.
126
DNA copying has the “stupendous accuracy” that it has, because there is an error
correcting mechanism, which is the equivalent of human proof reading. Who thought of that idea
I wonder? Are we to be told that mutations honed by natural selection invented this mechanism?
Need I say more?
127
“DNA messages”. Dr. Dawkins cannot get away from the use of language which
implies that a mind was involved. Messages come from an intelligent source or they are not really
messages. Then there are “the properties of DNA”. How did it get those properties ? Was it the
work of an intelligent being or chance? On the next page we are told the properties are basic
ingredients and that they “ must have arisen spontaneously”. This is not, of course, known fact
but simply speculation.
128
Self replication Dr. Dawkins says is the basic ingredient of cumulative selection.
How then did the variety in the non-living world come into existence ? What about all the things
that are in the earth, minerals, metals and so on. How did all the beautiful hills, streams and so on
come into existence ? Then what about the forces of nature: gravity, electricity etc. Why do we
have heat and cold ? Why do things have the properties they do ? What about the waves that
span space, light waves with their various colours, gamma rays, radio waves and so on. Are we to
assume that all these things came into being by some evolutionary process ? How could natural
selection be applied to such things ? One mentions this as the evolutionist seems to concentrate
mainly on living things, particularly the animal creation and often on how human beings evolved
from ape like creatures.
132
If new species simply supercede the old there is no increase in variety. It is just a
case of A being replaced by B. The world is full of a vast variety of flora and fauna. Natural
selection will not result in variety whatever it is working on. It can only displace one species with
another.
133
“Spontaneously arising”. Life does not arise spontaneously. What causes a
molecule to arise spontaneously, if it does ?
134
“It is all utterly simple and automatic”. Nature is far from simple. Everything is
highly complex (think of the fruit of the fig tree). Why should we then think of the coming into
being of new species to be a simple matter ? Creatures have a built in ability to do things
automatically, but who or what set up the programs in the first place ?
April 2001
