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. |
I offer this for your perusal:
Behe's Response to critics concerning peer-review
Speaking of peer-review. Who reviewed and signed-up to Miller's stuff besides PBS and a few evo's?
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.
And we already know the results of what will happen if they even tried.
His whole argument boils down to I don't understand (He uses the word "Vague" in that article over and over) the evolution of the Flagellum so it must be designed.
Scientifically it would be shot down because the flagellum didn't evolve from the TTSS system instead they have a common ancestor so his methodology is flawed right at the onset.
Your post should be peer-reviewed, Miller’s article should be peer-reviewed, and Begley’s article should be in a peer-reviewed journal (unless the Wall Street Journal counts). I will try to submit this post for peer reviewing so we might discuss it…
All post here are peer reviewed, In this case our peers are fellow freepers and the moderators.
In the interim… Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy? -Frank J. Tipler
Oh boo hoo, The ol' I'm a victim of a conspiracy card
This was never ‘my’ argument as ‘since men can't know what God knows’ does not necessarily follow ‘science is wrong’.
It seems ‘I’ am not arguing but agreeing with you...
With God, anything is possible. ;)
But my statement summarizes irreducible complexity. From the article;
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.
The author is asking for a complete model at the least. Miller's point was that the parts do have functions. It was creationists who stated that the parts had no function without having to "cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible;..." or "give a theoretical model."
The bar gets raised again.
I see ‘might have’ and ‘could have’ in peer-reviewed articles all the time. His argument is not ‘I don’t understand’ but I do understand this is not a result of stupidity. Furthermore, ironically the term ‘vague’ in Mike Gene’s article is used in reference to the peer-reviewed articles he referenced.
From Mike Gene:
“All of this takes us back to the first essay in this series. In that essay, I noted how Ken Miller was able to explain the simple mousetrap in evolutionary terms. In other words, Miller (and others) have unintentionally demonstrated that the human mind can imagine evolutionary transitions when there were none. I noted:”
What is interesting about this logic is that we already know that the mousetrap was intelligently designed. We also know that it did not first exist as a clipboard, then a tie clip. Thus, while it is logically possible to see the mousetrap as Miller does, that is, as a modified clipboard and tie clip, such perceptions are not tied to history nor the origin of the mousetrap. Thus, coming up with imaginary accounts that tap into our ability to imagine cooptional origins, by itself, is rather meaningless. If we can successfully come up with such explanations where they are known to be false(the mousetrap), how do we know that our ability to do likewise with things like the flagellum are not also inherently flawed?
Huh? Furthermore, ironically the term ‘vague’ in Mike Gene’s article is used in reference to the peer-reviewed articles he referenced.
OoooooK, His argument is I find the peer-reviewed articles "vague" (Translation: I don't or don't want to understand them especially in light of the fact I'm making so much $$$ off of suckers) so it must be God.
Even if he is right and they are "Vague", That still doesn't prove ID. Currently many aspects of the formation of Lightning bolts, Tornadoes and Hurricanes we don't exactly understand (a.k.a. they are "Vague")so does that mean it takes Devinne intervention to design every last bolt of lightning, Tornado or Hurricane?
One of the reasons it would be nice to have a link or reference to the paper the popular article is based upon would be check the veracity of any quotes from that paper. Certain groups have shown a proclivity for taking scientific quotes out of context in an effort to bolster those groups' positions.
Of course, when one's position is not supported by the data, it is always best to "attack the messenger" -- in this case the peer-review process.
Rule 3.-- Creationoid Handbook
When the science is against you but only your opponent knows this, stay the course and keep repeating your talking points.Rule 4.
When the science is against you and everyone in the room seems to know it, your best bet is to rant and rave and change the subject.
"GADS! Looks like my Mutation and Cooption model is flawed!"
The ID argument is, and always has been, that because 1)such-and-such a biological system requires all of parts A,B,C,...,Z and 2)possession of only a subset of those parts conveys no advantage and thus is not preferred by natural selection, then the biological system in question must have arisen fully-formed like Athena from the forehead of Zeus.
The fact that components of an allegedly "irreducably complex" system serve other functions in their own right refutes premise (2) -- if A does something useful, whether or not it is related to the function of the A,B,C,...,Z combination, then natural selection will tend to keep it around even without any of the other components. The entire argument thus crashes down.
Behe's argument is simply a bit of prolix razzle-dazzle designed to focus attention on premise (1) in order to distract attention from the failure of premise (2). Unfortunately, his irreducably complex argument cannot function without both of them.
And for a component to "remain" around it must be maintained, so will it will be either unchanged due to its criticality for its present function(maximum fitness and "unavailable" for cooption) or be driven towards criticality for that function(seeking maximum fitness and "unavailable" for cooption) as predicted by Darwinian evolution. And as Behe makes clear, you build a straw man and knock it down by your mischaracterization of his argument. Premise two is a false representation of his argument. He again has clearly stated above 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. "
Since you clearly don't understand the theory of evolution by natural selection, you are hardly in any position to accuse me of misunderstanding Behe's argument. I understand it perfectly well, which is how I see that it is specious.
Natural selection preserves elements that are good enough to convey a competitive advantage and removes elements that are bad enough to convey a competitive disadvantage. It neither forces elements to remain unchanged (if it did, life would never have evolved at all) nor forces them to some ideal "optimum" (if it did, life would appear to have been the product of "intelligent design", and would lack all the uphill-draining sinuses, eye wiring in the light path, and other obviously unintelligent, but adequate, adaptations).
Did you even bother reading the article - by the by - Behe is NOT a creationist. He's an honest biochemist - few and far between these days.
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.