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. |
My definition - WHAT are you talking about? Those are the words of Charles Darwin.
Title of this thread: "Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions"
Darwin's words: "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."
Please explain the contradiction - it seems to only exist in your mind.
Your murder scene analogy breaks down as well.
Really? How?
Since at this point irreducible complexity still has no meaning, according to the posted article
Darwin defines the term. This article defines the term. Seems your head is inserted firmly in the sand (although some may substitute a bodily orifice for the sand).
This is an illogical statement. This person is saying one cannot formulate a hypotheses unless said hypothesis can be proved to be the only possible explanation. This is utter nonsense.
I assume you'll say they're irreducibly complex too. Then we'll go right down through molecules to atoms to quarks.
It's irreducible complexity all the way down.
It's just as I stated in my post you originally responded to, everything's irreducibly complex. The term doesn't mean anything.
No it does not. Like I said, you seem to be a wee bit reading-challenged. The titles says:
"Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions"
Nobody is claiming anything about "sub-systems" nor has there been any mention of "perfectly functioning sub-systems"
HINT: The opposition to IC claims that some PARTS of the systems have other purposes.
Repeating unsupported gibberish does not make it any less unsupported gibberish. Nobody has claimed everything is irreducibly complex (except you and you have provided no supporting evidence for your claim).
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.
The authors is saying "finding a secondary purpose for SOME of the parts of an IC component does not explain how it could evolve using the Darwinian process"
If you believe otherwise, please explain how it could evolve using the Darwinian process. I know that might interrupt your Evo-Reactionary victory dance - but heck - give it a try.
Yes, the proposition you presented is indeed utter nonsense. But it's not what Dennett, the quoted author, said. You didn't fully understand his statement. He is addressing what is actually the fundamental premise of Intelligent Design: that natural processes absolutely cannot account for certain phenomena (and for that specific reason evolution cannot be the explanation for such phenomena). That's the claim of the ID advocates. That is the proposition which they must somehow demonstrate, before it becomes reasonable to speculate about non-natural processes, such as an "intelligent designer."
So according to you, parts of a system with other functions aren't functioning systems. So you deny that these parts of systems that have functions are systems???
If you weren't so busy with your insults maybe you could write a coherent statement. I believe you're just ducking the whole issue.
Basically if there are no examples of irreducibly complex systems, you're still left with only a Designer, because that's where you started.
You just restated the same thing. "that natural processes absolutely cannot account for certain phenomena" - You are claiming the ID hypothesis is only possible after one proves all other hypotheses are not true. That is absurd.
The "natural process" or evolution cannot explain IC so the ID hypothesis is very much valid. Using that logic ID advocates can merely say "the fundamental premise of evolution: that intelligent design processes absolutely cannot account for certain phenomena (and for that pecific reason ID cannot be the explanation for such phenomena)"
The double-edge sword strikes again
1. That was the title of this thread so it is not "according to me"
2. If a part has function it is not a system - it is a part that has a function. If the part functions as a part of a system, it is part of a functioning system.
3. What are you talking about? What is the point to these silly statements?
If you weren't so busy with your insults maybe you could write a coherent statement. I believe you're just ducking the whole issue.
Yeah. Right. You jumped into this thread making statements about "God did it" when the word God does not appear in the article then you have the nerve to comment about somebody else not presenting a coherent statement.
Basically if there are no examples of irreducibly complex systems, you're still left with only a Designer, because that's where you started.
An example of IC has been presented (and you have not refuted it) so clearly you are sticking your head in the sand by claiming no examples exist. (closing your eyes does not make things go away)
From your quote, Dennett invokes mindful and intelligent situations and puts forth, “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” – Zeus and Martians aside… He doesn’t even seem to be concerned with the actual names of the intelligent actors in these situations. Of course an ‘universal acid’ would dissolve any skyhook that he mindfully created.
Anyway, great stuff Pat!
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.