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. |
Why should anyone listen to you? Behe's ideas are not holding up under detailed examination here, nor is this an isolated incident.
You want to denegrate a man and his work based upon ther blatherings of people on this thread?
You are slamming down the lid of your mind, cutting and running at the horror of contradictory data. That's Morton's Demon in action.
I cannot find any sort of compelling reason to "listen to me," especially considering the anonymity of the net. With that said - why listen to anyone, then? We could all be mad-men, no? Read the book. With your background - as I understand it - it shouldn't be tough.
You are slamming down the lid of your mind, cutting and running at the horror of contradictory data.
I'm not sure what contradictory data you are referring to. Perhaps I should go back and read the entire thread?
Irreducible complexity, like any idea, is not comepletely perfect, and can be picked at. I don't hold that IC is the Holy Grail, but it does give more then enough food for thought, particularly in regards to the development of the first cell from organic precursors. I know, I know - "but, but, but, that's NOT evolution" - well, if science can't even manage a cell without a miraculous event, then I'm not about to start eating the "evolution is the cornerstone to origins" bullsh!t and letting everyone know just how TASTY it is.
It's like I've said before, if none of this bothers you, then I'm not sure what good a discussion further on the subject will help.
You'll get your chance . . .
Nothing about abiogenesis or the evolution of complex structures makes magical, supernatural intervention preferable as an explanation.
Like I said. I'm not sure further discussion will help. :-) Read the book and you'll understand, from a biochemical perspective, the points of IC as they apply to abiogenesis, and why this is a significant hurdle for evolution.
Of course, noone will take me seriously because I lack credentials - but this is how I would define "functional complexity":
There's nothing wrong with this definition. Of course, the definition does not preclude an object with "functional complexity" from evolving gradually (nor does Behe's definition of "irreducible complexity.")
If you want to "go there" with me, I'd assert that we need to look at "information" first because I believe that to be the property which separates the living from the non-living. (Pearson, Pattee, Rocha, Yockey)
So... did it turn into a mutual back-patting exercise on the part of those who wish to discredit the observations of God?
Or, were any people of faith baited into a rancor? A slap and tickle party, maybe?
How is it possble that people of faith could ever be successfully baited into rancor?
Don't just keep chirping at everyone to read the dumb book. When real biologists read the book, they make criticisms like this one.
A broader, quicker summary of objections to Darwin's Black Box.
I suggest that, if you think any important arguments from DBB have been neglected on this thread, you try and run them up the flagpole here. I've seen them all and seen them all shot down.
Bring it up to 11!
Dunno, Brother A -- I haven't gone back to that party yet. Been really busy today. Maybe tonight.
Alas, how is it indeed? I guess a good answer to that is: with pain and before renewed repentance.
No first cell, no biological evolution. That's about a simple as it gets. Evolution as a theory isn't terrible as secular theories go, but it can go comepletely nowhere without the first cell. If you have no problem with this, then we have nothing more to discuss, do we?
It looks like your mind has been "made up" then, hasn't it? Seriously, what more do you want from me, an exhaustive treatise explaining Behe's Irreducible Complexity as it applies to the biochemistry of the cell? If that's the case, then read the book - besides all the points have been "shot down," right? If that's so, why should I post? You've already established it won't matter.
:-)
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.