Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle and dealing with national and international affairs. For more information, browse Discovery's Web site at: http://www.discovery.org.
Posted on 02/18/2004 3:41:01 PM PST by Heartlander
|
A Response to Sharon Begley’s Wall Street Journal Column Michael J. Behe Discovery Institute February 18, 2004 |
| In a recent column in the Wall Street Journal (February 13, 2004, Science Journal, page B1, “Evolution Critics Come Under Fire for Flaws In 'Intelligent Design'”) science writer Sharon Begley repeated some false claims about the concept of irreducible complexity (IC) that have been made by Darwinists, in particular by Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University. After giving a serviceable description in her column of why I argue that a mousetrap is IC, Begley added the Darwinist poison pill to the concept. The key misleading assertion in the article is the following: “Moreover, the individual parts of complex structures supposedly serve no function.” In other words, opponents of design want to assert that if the individual parts of a putatively IC structure can be used for anything at all other than their role in the system under consideration, then the system itself is not IC. So, for example, Kenneth Miller has seriously argued that a part of a mousetrap could be used as a paperweight, so not even a mousetrap is IC. Now, anything that has mass could be used as a paperweight. Thus by Miller’s tendentious reasoning any part of any system at all has a separate “function”. Presto! There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. That’s what often happens when people who are adamantly opposed to an idea publicize their own definitions of its key terms--the terms are manipulated to wage a PR battle. The evident purpose of Miller and others is to make the concept of IC so brittle that it easily crumbles. However, they are building a straw man. I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn’t be used for any other purpose. (That would be silly--who would ever claim that a part of a mousetrap couldn’t be used as a paperweight, or a decoration, or a blunt weapon?) Quite the opposite, I clearly wrote in Darwin’s Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system. In fact, it would most likely exacerbate the problem, as I stated when considering whether parts lying around a garage could be used to make a mousetrap without intelligent intervention. In order to catch a mouse, a mousetrap needs a platform, spring, hammer, holding bar, and catch. Now, suppose you wanted to make a mousetrap. In your garage you might have a piece of wood from an old Popsicle stick (for the platform), a spring from an old wind-up clock, a piece of metal (for the hammer) in the form of a crowbar, a darning needle for the holding bar, and a bottle cap that you fancy to use as a catch. But these pieces, even though they have some vague similarity to the pieces of a working mousetrap, in fact are not matched to each other and couldn’t form a functioning mousetrap without extensive modification. All the while the modification was going on, they would be unable to work as a mousetrap. The fact that they were used in other roles (as a crowbar, in a clock, etc.) does not help them to be part of a mousetrap. As a matter of fact, their previous functions make them ill-suited for virtually any new role as part of a complex system. Darwin’s Black Box, page 66.
The reason why a separate function for the individual parts does not solve the problem of IC is because IC is concerned with the function of the system: By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Darwin’s Black Box, page 39.
The system can have its own function, different from any of the parts. Any individual function of a part does not explain the separate function of the system. Miller applies his crackerjack reasoning not only to the mousetrap, but also to the bacterial flagellum--the extremely sophisticated, ultra complex biological outboard motor that bacteria use to swim, which I had discussed in Darwin’s Black Box and which has becoming something of a poster child for intelligent design. No wonder, since anyone looking at a drawing of the flagellum immediately apprehends the design. Since the flagellum is such an embarrassment to the Darwinian project, Miller tries to distract attention from its manifest design by pointing out that parts of the structure can have functions other than propulsion. In particular, some parts of the flagellum act as a protein pump, allowing the flagellum to aid in its own construction--a level of complexity that was unsuspected until relatively recently. Miller’s argument is that since a subset of the proteins of the flagellum can have a function of their own, then the flagellum is not IC and Darwinian evolution could produce it. That’s it! He doesn’t show how natural selection could do so; he doesn’t cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible; he doesn’t give a theoretical model. He just points to the greater-than-expected complexity of the flagellum (which Darwinists did not predict or expect) and declares that Darwinian processes could produce it. This is clearly not a fellow who wants to look into the topic too closely. In fact, the function of a pump has essentially nothing to do with the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion device, anymore than the ability of parts of a mousetrap to act as paperweights has to do with the trap function. And the existence of the ability to pump proteins tells us nil about how the rotary propulsion function might come to be in a Darwinian fashion. For example, suppose that the same parts of the flagellum that were unexpectedly discovered to act as a protein pump were instead unexpectedly discovered to be, say, a chemical factory for synthesizing membrane lipids. Would that alternative discovery affect Kenneth Miller’s reasoning at all? Not in the least. His reasoning would still be simply that a part of the flagellum had a separate function. But how would a lipid-making factory explain rotary propulsion? In the same way that protein pumping explains it--it doesn’t explain it at all. The irreducible complexity of the flagellum remains unaltered and unexplained by any unintelligent process, despite Darwinian smoke-blowing and obscurantism. I have pointed all this out to Ken Miller on several occasions, most recently at a debate in 2002 at the American Museum of Natural History. But he has not modified his story at all. As much as some Darwinists might wish, there is no quick fix solution to the problem of irreducible complexity. If they want to show their theory can account for it (good luck!), then they’ll have to do so by relevant experiments and detailed model building--not by wordplay and sleight-of-hand. |
|
Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle and dealing with national and international affairs. For more information, browse Discovery's Web site at: http://www.discovery.org. |
The organs I have left are behaving themselves for the moment. In the broader picture I'm just kind of hanging in against the torrents of change. Yourself?
I use the term according to standard useage for a specific mousetrap type, not a guy standing over a mousehole with a large cinder block or any other abstraction!
You're defining away your difficulties, then. A mousetap has to have all your elements because you say it does. Empty exercise.
The dirty little fact being ignored is that ideas and inventions also evolve but because of language and drawing, the intermediate steps do not require a physical implementation. This results in gaps in the intellectual fossil record. There are zero nontrivial inventions that have not evolved.
As a thought experiment I suggest you concoct a plausible story about the invention of the mousetrap that does not involve precursor elements having non-mousetrap functionality.
All evolution requires is that the parts are present in the whole system. Analogies of mousetraps and cars are helpful to a degree, but fall well short of the mark when trying to describe biology at the molecular level. Cells are like bags stuffed with lots of protein which have a bit of processing and travelling to do before they are incorporated into a macromolecular machine (like a flagellum). Sometimes parts of different machines interact spontaneously. If they produce something that conveys a survival/reproductive advantage it is likely to be passed on to the next generation.
Well then tell me, is post 80 an attempt at a rational exchange, or is it belittling right from the start deserving of no response?
I have done that long enough. The interchange where I requested the cessation was after prior rude interchanges. The fact that the person "answers" that way is sufficient evidence to me that he still deserves no answer. You can answer him if you like. I won't. The world will go on without my answer.
Truly, I wish they had used the term "irreducible functional complexity" instead of simply "irreducible complexity". It would make it much easier to get to the heart of the matter, IMHO.
It is much, much more plausible than experience with common everyday materials in the macro world would lead you to believe. Experiments have shown that these types of relatively non-specific interactions can and do occur. Proteins can be "sticky". You have to think of them more like "lego" rather than metal, wood or whatever. The molecular evidence overwhemingly supports the idea that the same types of molecular "parts" are found in many different machines. The proteins themselves are essentially combinations of a relatively small set of motifs. Expeiments which address how systems might evolve have been performed in microorganisms. There are several examples of experimental situations where a bacterial population evolves systems (enzymes, regulatory switches etc.) to metabolize foreign substances. I am unsure if anyone has taken these experiments to the point where more complex machines evolve, but it would hardly be surprising.
And he is wrong on that claim, both because his "proof" that "current models cannot describe" systems which match his definition is flawed, and because the biological examples he gives don't even match his own definition.
Of course, this is a true statement,
It isn't, I regret to inform you.
which is why there have been two types of responses to Behe: Calling him a nutcase,
"Nutcase" would be overstating the issue, but he definitely shows the signs of what's known as a "crank" -- someone who gets fixated on a favorite alternative theory and has grandiose ideas about revolutionizing science, then clings to it even after flaws in the theory and counterevidence against it have been demonstrated. He even uses the crank's standard "there's a conspiracy against these ideas" excuse for why he has not yet been given the adulation he deserves. Also like the standard crank, he underplays the current body of scientific knowledge, implying that current knowledge is poor or incorrect.
or trying to demonstrate that irreducible complexity does not exist in biological systems.
On the contrary, Behe has not yet demonstrated that any of his examples actually *are* "irreducibly complex" and thus could not have evolved from some earlier system. He waves his hands a lot, but *proving* something "IR" requires far more rigor than just saying, "it seems to me that..."
The critics don't have to prove that no IR systems exist anywhere, Behe has to prove that at least one *does* exist before his arguments will be anything more than a curiosity.
Behe's definition of irreducible complexity has remained consistent (read his book), and so far, the only way people have been able to prove one of his systems reducible is to change his working definition.
See the second half of my previous post -- Behe himself "changes" it by admitting that subcomponents *can* have their own function, which effectively expands his "original" definition in a way that shatters it. Oops.
A definition, by the way, which was NOT arbitrarily obtained. It is a definition that resulted from an OBSERVED weakness in the Darwinian model of natural selection.
This is what Behe would like his readers to believe, but it's not true. One of the most striking differences between Behe's personal definition of "IR" and the statement of Darwin from which Behe claims inspiration:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." -- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species"And now Behe's:
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."Behe makes a major, glaring error here in trying to "formalize" Darwin's point. By specifying that the key test is whether anything can be "removed" from the system, Behe has artificially constrained evolution to forming new components by only *ADDING* "parts" to pre-existing structures. This is an enormous mistake on Behe's part, because evolution is known to also form novel systems by *removing* parts, or *rearranging* parts, not just adding them -- and Behe's definition of "irreducible complexity" only "allows" evolution to build things by adding.
For illustration, let's say that we find a stucture ABC in a cell. By experimentation, we find that removal of A, or removal of B, or removal of C leaves the structure non-functional in any sense. Aha!, cries Behe, this meets my definition of "irreducible complexity" and thus could never have evolved! Not so fast there, Behe...
First, consider that while we have shown that "AB" was nonfunctional (since ABC was "broken" by our experimental removal of "C"), further examination of component combinations may reveal that "A" by itself is semi-functional, "BA" (not "AB") is moderately functional, and "BAC" is functional. Now note that the allegedly irredicibly complex "ABC" could have evolved after all by the following sequence: A -> BA -> BAC -> ABC (first three steps by addition, last step by rearrangement). Uh oh, Behe seems to have forgotten about *other* methods of "gradual change" reaching the end state, and not just by "adding" things.
Case two: Perhaps instead our examination of the functionality of various combinations of components of "ABC" revealed that *no* combination of one or more of those components, in any order, was in any way functional except for "ABC". Is Behe vindicated in *this* case? No, because Behe has yet again overlooked *another* method by which "ABC" could have arisen "one step at a time". For example: D -> CD -> BCD -> ABCD -> ABC. Ooh, look there -- some *other* component (D), no longer present in the system as we find it today, was the original semi-functional component, upon which evolution built until it happened to end up with a system where "D" was no longer necessary because the rest of the system had developed into a subsystem that shouldered the whole load and no longer needed the original component, so it was discarded.
Yet *again* we find that Behe's simplistic "evolution must proceed only by *adding* components" view leaves out other possible pathways for systems to arise.
By Behe's flawed model of natural gradual change, *this* would be impossible as well and only could have arisen by "intelligent design":
After all, you can't make a sedimentary rock arch by just *adding* sediment, can you?
I spotted this flaw the first time I read Behe's definition of "IR". So did most reviewers. What's Behe's excuse?
So, I hear you ask, hypothetical examples are one thing, but can you point to an example of evolution actually working in those ways? Yes, indeed. There are countless examples in molecular biology, but the most striking ones are (drumroll please) in the cascade systems of the blood clotting and immune complement systems, which Behe uses as examples of irreducible complexity in his book... See:
The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood ClottingBehe basically said: If a system X exists, it cannot have come about through natural selection.Evolving Immunity: A Response to Chapter 6 of Darwin's Black Box
A Delicate Balance, Russell F. Doolittle
Is the Blood Clotting Cascade "Irreducibly Complex?"
Is the Complement System Irreducibly Complex?
Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?
Behe and the Blood Clotting Cascade
Redundant Complexity:A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry
A Biochemist's Response to "The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"
Evolution of vertebrate fibrin formation and the process of its dissolution
Yes, he *said* that -- didn't *prove* it.
He then discovered numerous systems X.
No, he didn't. *Claiming* that numerous systems exhibit property X is not the same as *demonstrating* that they exhibit property X (Irredicible Complexity). Each of Behe's examples boils down to, "wow, this sure is complex, I'll bet that if you knocked out one of its parts, it wouldn't work at all!" Unfortunately for Behe's presumptions, people who *have* done such tests have found that the systems in question are often *not* disabled by removing one or more parts. They're not "IC" even by *BEHE'S* narrow definition.
For example, Behe claims that the vertebrate clotting cascade is "Irredicubly Complex", and he implies several times in his book that if it were missing any component, the animal would either "freeze solid" as all its blood coagulated in its veins, or "bleed to death". Obviously Behe was just GUESSING, because people who *have* actually experimented on removing one or more components of the clotting cascade found that blood clotting often does *not* make it "nonfunctional".
On page 88 of his book, Behe writes the following as part of a passage trying to imply how oh so complex the blood clotting cascade is, and how everything must be "just so" or else it'd fall apart:
Plasmin cannot act too quickly, however, or the wound wouldn't have sufficient time to heal completely. It therefore occurs initially in an active form called plasminogen. Conversion of plasminogen to plasmin is catalizyed by a protein called t-PA. There are also other proteins that control clot dissolution, including alpha2-antiplasmin, which binds to plasmin, preventing it from destoying [sic] fibrin clots.Wow, sounds impressive. The implication that Behe wants to leave is that all parts of the clotting system are "critically" necessary, and that therefore the blood clotting cascade is "Irreducibly Complex".The [Rube Goldberg] cartoon machine that conked Foghorn Leghorn depended critically on the precise alignment, timing, and structure of many components. If the string attached to the dollar bill were too long, or the cannon misaligned, then the whole system would fail. In teh same way, the clotting cascade depends critically on the timing and speed at which the different reactions occur. An animal could solidify if thrombin activated proconvertin at the wrong time; it could bleed to death if proaccelerin or antihemophilic factor were activated too slowly.
Except that they not all of them are, and therefore it isn't.
For example, although Behe specifically mentions t-PA (see above) in his long list of "wow, there sure are a lot of reactions involved", and the way he describes it, t-PA *must* be present to catalyze plasminogen into the critical plasmin, researchers have developed a "knockout" mouse (i.e., a strain of mice with a specific gene knocked out of their DNA) which ENTIRELY LACKS t-PA, and the results on clotting are... noticeable, but minimal. The mice are listed as having normal fertility, and some impairment of clot lysis (dissolving), but otherwise do well enough to to be listed in bioscience.org's category of "GENE KNOCKOUTS WHICH ARE COMPATIBLE WITH VIABILITY" -- i.e., do not manifest a serious rise in mortality rates.
Even knocking out *both* t-PA and the related u-PA, the most noticeable effect on the mice is a 26% reduction in ovulation rates, which isn't good but it still allows the mice to live and reproduce, so their clotting systems are still hardly "nonfunctional".
So the vertebrate blood clotting system is *not* "Irreducibly Complex" after all, not even by Behe's definition -- part of it can be removed and it still functions as a working blood clotting system.
This is just one example of how Behe *guesses* as to whether his sample systems are truly "IC" or not, instead of having proven that they are. In short, Behe was mistaking his presumptions for reality.
That's a point many people fail to recognize.
If anyone's missing a point, it's Behe.
It just isn't the flagellum. He also cites gated transport systems, mammalian blood clotting and a few others that escape me at the moment.
*cough*. See above. Behe's other examples have similar flaws.
The reason that Behe publishes in the creationist papers and sites, is because they are the only ones that will accept his work,
...because they're flawed, but the creationists don't notice/mind because he provides apparent "support" for their preferred conclusions.
despite the fact that his theoretical models and arguments are sound and supported.
You really ought to read some of the actual scientific literature, and not just the pat-each-other-on-the-back creationists sources.
I don't wonder that he's become slightly bitter toward the evolutionist crowd of late.
That's what eventually happens to most cranks who refuse to face the flaws in their work and instead blame the lack of acceptance on a "conspiracy of silence" from "the establishment".
For Sale: Rare and unique glass figurines. Different shapes and sizes. Made from broken beer bottles. All most go – please bring broom and pan.
This sums up what some people buy in regard to design by stupidity.
Stupidity, by definition, is lack of intelligence. When intelligent design is rejected we are left with design by stupidity. Methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are by definition – ‘stupidity’ because they lack intelligence.
How much are you willing to pay for the rare items?
Perhaps a flagellum? A stupid universe? A mind (your mind)-- all from this stupidity?
No trouble at all.
but not clear that Behe's two statements contradict each other.
Then I'll be glad to clarify.
The first quote merely refers to a precursor system that SERVES THE SAME FUNCTION. It does not mean that the parts of a system can't have some function IN ANOTHER SYSTEM.
Yes it does.
At least it better mean that, because if Behe meant that passage the way *you* wish to interpret it, then the claims he makes in it are quite simply and obviously wrong. In your effort to try to "solve" the contradiction between the *two* statements, you've made the first statement *self-contradictory* all on its own, because his *reasoning* in that statement becomes illogical if he's *not* talking about systems that become completely nonfunctional in any way if parts are removed.
Hardly an improvement.
But in any case, your interpretation is obviously incorrect. In example after example throught the book, Behe measures whether a system is "IC" based on whether it would (allegedly) lose its *current* function if any part were removed.
In his illustrative "mousetrap" analogy, for example, which keeps popping up throughout the book, he keeps hammering on the point that taking away a part (or substantially changing a part so that it didn't mesh with the others) would render it incapable FOR CATCHING MICE. Behe places a great deal of significance on this observation.
Nowhere does he admit (or attempt to deny) that a mousetrap without, say, the trigger would still be a very functional memo clip, money clip, or closure clip for half-eaten bags of snacks.
It's entirely clear that when he writes of the "remove one thing" test and describes the "nonfunctionality" that he alleges results, he's fixating on *the* one function it currently fulfills. In fact, numerous times Behe writes of "the function", a clear indication that he's considering a single, well-defined functional use for the system.
Furthermore, the passage "A" I quoted makes absolutely no sense unless it's read only with the presumption that the *current* function is all there is or can be:
Claim A: "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. ... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on."His meaning is clear. In his own words, "any" missing part at all renders the remaining parts "by definition nonfunctional" -- not just "functional in other ways". And it is upon this very assertion of "nonfunctionality" that he bases his claim that the system would then have to arise "all at once" (or in his words, "in one fell swoop"). He also explictly claims that prior to the system arising (in a form functional for its *current* function), there would not be "anything for natural selection to act on" -- this again logically implies that there is *no* alternative functionality for natural selection to act on; the system reverts to a pile of junk useless for any purpose.
In the article he gives a quote from his original work, "Darwin's Black Box" that refutes the idea he is moving the bar on this.
He's not moving the bar *now*, he moved it within a few short pages in his original book. On page 39 he introduces his definition of "IC" that critically depends on *no* alternative function if any part is removed and the "original" function is broken. Then on page 66 he waffles and admits that subcomponents *could* fulfill other functions after all, which cuts the legs out from under his argument on page 39. Oops.
He torpedoed himself.
You can't have a mousetrap that lacks a spring.
And yes, I'm familiar with Behe's attempts to handwave away glue-traps by introducing vaguely different "category names" for glue traps and snap mousetraps. I'll be glad to show why his attempts to draw an artificial line between the two fails to support his "IC" notion, if you like.
That is not the same as saying a spring can't be used for other things.
And if it can, then it can be acted on by selection, and yet again that's the reason that Behe's "claim A" deflates like a defective balloon.
All of the parts used for a moustrap could be used for something else, but no precursor MOUSETRAP system could funcion without all of those parts of the system in place.
Wrong again. A reducibly complex mousetrap. Or simply:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.