Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions
Discovery Institute ^ | February 18, 2004 | Michael J. Behe

Posted on 02/18/2004 3:41:01 PM PST by Heartlander

Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions:
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.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy; Technical
KEYWORDS: creationuts; crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-253 next last
To: PatrickHenry
"Festival of Placemarkers" placemarker
221 posted on 02/23/2004 10:05:38 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Notice of intention to abandon thread.
222 posted on 02/23/2004 10:32:13 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Stick a fork in this thread placemarker
223 posted on 02/23/2004 11:58:02 AM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Junior
her=here
224 posted on 02/23/2004 12:48:00 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: js1138
And here I'd thought you'd finally gotten lucky...
225 posted on 02/23/2004 12:51:54 PM PST by Junior (No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Married 34 years to the same her. Isn't that lucky enough?
226 posted on 02/23/2004 1:07:19 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Nor is there a definition. Again we hear the argument that since men can't know what God knows, science is wrong. Indeed, men can know nothing, even when they see it.

Seems many Evo-Reactionaries are also "reading-challenged"

Does the word God appear anywhere in the article that is the topic of this thread? NO!

Does the author say or imply "God knows", "science is wrong", or "Man can know nothing"? NO! (not even close)

You Evo-Reactionaries seem to have one answer to any challenge made to your beloved theory and you use it even when it is totally inapplicable.

Read the article and try again.

227 posted on 02/23/2004 1:38:49 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
The irreducible complexity of the flagellum remains unaltered and unexplained by any unintelligent process, despite Darwinian smoke-blowing and obscurantism.

If God is not the "Intelligent Designer", then who is?

Still no definition.

228 posted on 02/23/2004 1:48:20 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
I should say thanks for noticing me, by the way. ;)
229 posted on 02/23/2004 1:49:04 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
If God is not the "Intelligent Designer", then who is? Still no definition.

Observing design does not in any way shape or form require one to define the designer - that is a very "unscientific" statement. You assume a lot. This article just supports the concept of Irreducible Complexity (a concept first put forth by Darwin), it says nothing about creation or god.

Some people think there are "Reds" or commies under their beds, <1/1,000,000th% thinks there are "god worshipers" hiding under his bed.

230 posted on 02/23/2004 2:01:05 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
This article just supports the concept of Irreducible Complexity (a concept first put forth by Darwin), it says nothing about creation or god.

Irreducible complexity is older than Darwin. The concept of the Designer was universally acknowledged at the time to be God.

You are merely baiting me, as irreducible complexity presumes a Designer. Otherwise why not give a definition of complexity that is workable?

231 posted on 02/23/2004 2:04:20 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Define "irreducible complexity."
232 posted on 02/23/2004 2:05:18 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
I should say thanks for noticing me, by the way. ;)

Like they say, any PR is good PR.

…reminds me of a story from my youth. I grew up is a small town called Damascus Maryland (not so small now), a suburb of Washington, DC. In the town there used to be one grocery store, Acme (I swear I saw the Coyote shopping there often). The parking lot was on the side of the store which was just a big empty brick wall. One day somebody spray painted in very large letters "(some guy's name) sucks (male genitalia)" on the side wall of the Acme. It was up for a while so everybody in town got to see it. Years later I was in a band with some older guys and they mentioned they know the guy that was the subject of the graffiti. I asked "what was his reaction" - I was told his position was "any PR is good PR"

233 posted on 02/23/2004 2:12:11 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Define "irreducible complexity."

I did not write the article that is the topic of this thread. This is what the author has to say:

A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

My opinion: A system that has no function/value/benefit unless all parts are in place and functioning - even if some of the other part have unrelated purpose.

My dog is this fight is going after the intellectual laziness of our Evo-Reactionary friends. I am not a partisan in this battle other than that.

234 posted on 02/23/2004 2:19:11 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
My dog is this fight

Make that "My dog in this fight"

235 posted on 02/23/2004 2:19:55 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Irreducible complexity is older than Darwin. The concept of the Designer was universally acknowledged at the time to be God.

Irreducible Complexity has nothing directly to do with the concept of design. So you say the concept of IC came BEFORE Darwin - really. Please explain the context of Irreducible Complexity BEFORE the theory of evolution was composed.

You are merely baiting me, as irreducible complexity presumes a Designer. Otherwise why not give a definition of complexity that is workable?

You assume a lot. Using your logic, if the police found a murder victim they must presume who the murderer is. Science does not work that way - one can observe evidence without understanding the cause.

I pointed out that you clearly did not read the article because you claimed the article made statements that are clearly not contained in the article - you merely presented Evo-Reactionary reply #1 (even though it was totally illogical and inapplicable).

BTW: I have presented both the author's definition of the Irreducible Complexity and my opinion. Unless you are merely baiting me, you need to admit a definition exists and has existed for years.

236 posted on 02/23/2004 2:37:59 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Define "irreducible complexity."

Try this one:

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.

-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

237 posted on 02/23/2004 2:53:25 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Has anyone posted this before? It is a review of sorts by the cognitive scientist/philosopher Daniel Dennett. He does a very good job here showing how Behe's Box is empty.

Dennett on Behe

238 posted on 02/23/2004 6:39:06 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
Very good. A sample:
Historians are not embarrassed by the fact that they cannot yet tell us, and probably never will be able to tell us, whether Alexander the Great arranged for the assassination of Philip II of Macedonia--or closer to the present, whether Oswald acted alone. This unrepairable ignorance does not conceal any abyss, however. It does not open the door, for instance, to the hypothesis that Zeus had a hand in Philip's death, or that Oswald was aided by Martians. In the same spirit, we may encounter unrepairable ignorance of the history of evolution, but this will not open the door to hypotheses about the intervention of an intelligent designer unless somebody can show that the work to be done during this history could not possibly be done by mindless evolution by natural selection.

239 posted on 02/23/2004 6:57:35 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Creationism means never having to say you're sorry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
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.

The title of the posted article contradicts your posted definition.

Your murder scene analogy breaks down as well. Since at this point irreducible complexity still has no meaning, according to the posted article.

240 posted on 02/24/2004 7:42:32 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-253 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson