Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe

[Geriatrix]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

 

[Techne]

Wow, Dawkins goes from an example of evolutionary change (science, and very interesting indeed) to a philosophical claim about some "intelligent designer". Like ID proponents, Dawkins tries to come across as "scientific", but he just can't keep his subjective philosophical musings to himself.

Sure, ID is not science, and philosophically speaking it is a bit sterile (I don't support it) and not much more than an argument from ignorance (something is too complex, it had to be designed), but you are not going to get rid of it by also using a subjective argument from ignorance.

ID argument:
1) The genetic code is highly complex
2) It is too complex to be the result of evolution (Argument from ignorance)
3) Therefore an intelligent designer interfered

Dawkins' argument:
1) Look, the laryngeal nerve is an example of evolution (observation).
2) It is impossible for an intelligent designer to design something like that. The intelligent designer is either not intelligent or not a desiger (Argument from ignorance)
3) Therefore ID is false.

Dawkins appears to be making the same daft arguments from ignorance the IDers are making.

 

[Mars]

Its a good argument. Unfortunately he leaves out some info that does not support his theory and discredits himself.

The extreme detour of this nerve in giraffes (fifteen feet further than the 'direct' route of a designer) is cited as evidence of evolution. [1] However, the existence of fibres innervating other structures along its length gives reason other than purely an evolutionary blunder for the seemingly nonsensical route.

 

[Geriatrix]

Its a good argument. Unfortunately he leaves out some info that does not support his theory and discredits himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve

Thought about that too. Cool autopsy though.

 

[Techne]

Its a good argument. Unfortunately he leaves out some info that does not support his theory and discredits himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve

Well, IMO, I don't think Dawkins' argument from ignorance is particularly good or even compelling. I just can't understand why he would share such bad philosophical "arguments" to a class that seems to be about biological science and evolution, and not philosophy.