Posted on 08/21/2007 9:53:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
In 1996, Pennsylvania's own Michael J. Behe launched a frontal attack upon Darwinian evolution with the publication of Darwin's Black Box. Behe, a mild-mannered molecular biologist at Lehigh University, argued politely but vigorously that the standard Darwinian explanation (random mutations plus natural selection) simply couldn't explain the evolution of a number of significant structures and processes observed in living things. Intricate processes like human blood clotting, and intricate structures like the bacterial flagellum (which is built uncannily like an outboard motor) were "irreducibly complex" arrangements that couldn't have arisen by a series of chance steps. They therefore must have been designed, by an intelligence of some kind. Behe's book soon became the flagship of the movement known as intelligent design (ID).
Behe's presentation and subsequent defense of ID (including his testimony at the Dover trial in 2005) outraged much of the biological community. He was denounced by the self-styled defenders of science - biologists like Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne, and non-scientists like Michael Ruse and Barbara Forrest. They accused Behe (along with his allies in the ID movement) of recycling disproved arguments, of insolently refusing to genuflect before the Darwinian consensus, of misunderstanding the nature of scientific theory, and of trying to slip God (disguised as "the intelligent designer") into public-school science classrooms.
Intelligent design, if not nipped in the bud, would turn science classes into seminaries, set back modern medicine by denying the evolution of antibiotic resistance, and destroy confidence in science in general, relegating America to a backward technological status.
There was some reasonable criticism. Behe said that the bacterial flagellum could have been created only by multiple coordinated genetic changes, and that such coordination was beyond the power of random mutation. Miller argued that, given enough time, random mutations could accumulate, producing a flagellum by stages. Behe's purely qualitative argument couldn't disprove this possibility; without hard numbers, how did he know what random mutation could or couldn't accomplish?
Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution, provides some hard numbers, coupled with an ingenious argument. The key to determining the exact powers of Darwinian evolution, says Behe, lies with fast-reproducing microbes. Some, such as malaria, HIV, and E. coli, reproduce so quickly that within a few decades, or at most a few millennia, they generate as many mutations as a larger, slower-breeding animal would in millions of years. By observing how far these creatures have evolved in recent times, we can estimate the creative limits of random mutation.
In the case of malaria, the creative limits appear quite low. Over the last few thousand years, several thousand billion billion malarial cells have been unable to develop an evolutionary response to the sickle-cell mutation, which protects its human bearers from malaria. On the other hand, malaria has proved able to develop Darwinian resistance to the antibiotic chloroquine. This resistance is based upon two simultaneous mutations affecting a malarial protein. Yet this rare double mutation has occurred fewer than 10 times since chloroquine was introduced 50 years ago, during which time a hundred billion billion malarial cells have been born. If this indicates the typical rate of occurrence of double mutations, then the Darwinian transformation of our pre-chimp ancestor into homo sapiens, which would have required at least some double mutations, would have taken at least a thousand trillion years, a time span greater than the age of the universe.
Drawing upon parallel mutation studies of HIV and E. coli for confirmation, Behe concludes that random mutations cannot explain the origin of most of the complex structures in living things. He concedes that Darwinian processes can make new species, but argues that they are incompetent to generate new kingdoms, phyla, or classes. The creative limit, the "edge of evolution," lies somewhere between the level of species and the level of class. Darwinian processes can account for the difference between a dog and a wolf, maybe even a dog and a bear, but not the difference between a lizard and a bird. Something other than random mutation must have produced such differences; for Behe, the "something" is intelligent design.
The response to Behe has been predictable. The editors of the major print media have assigned known enemies of ID to trash the book - Richard Dawkins for the New York Times; Coyne for the New Republic; Miller for Nature; Ruse for Toronto's Globe & Mail. A large part of each review is ad hominem, concerned with Behe's alleged religious agenda, his minority status among biologists, and other irrelevant matters. In Dawkins' review, the science is barely touched, and it's not clear from Ruse's review that he has even opened the cover of the book. Behe deserves better. The Edge of Evolution makes a serious, quantitative argument about the limits of Darwinian evolution. Evolutionary biology cannot honestly ignore it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Wybrow is a freelance writer with a doctorate from McMaster University. He has published two books on the origin of modern science.
More fantasy facts. Biologists don't care that Dr. Behe said that creationism is the same as astrology.
Evolutionists refuse to debate facts because their hypothesis has failed to muster any material chemical, biological, mathematical, or archeological support.
The whole hypothesis is propped up by a stubborn resistance to the obvious creative genius in every living thing.
One need only examine the fabulous complexity of the simplest cell to conclude that this thing couldn’t have sprung itself into existence.
He concedes that Darwinian processes can make new species, but argues that they are incompetent to generate new kingdoms, phyla, or classes. The creative limit, the "edge of evolution," lies somewhere between the level of species and the level of class. Darwinian processes can account for the difference between a dog and a wolf, maybe even a dog and a bear, but not the difference between a lizard and a bird.
Interesting, somewhat intuitive and corresponding with human experience, and conforming with the fossil evidence.
The ID crowd is adding to our knowledge regarding the development of creatures. Can't say the same for the evolution community, which seems to be positively reactionary.
It's a logical and intriguing possibility. The problem is, no such mechanism has been identified, as yet, as far as I know.
What?
Are you kidding?
The entire fossil record is the fact.
bump
“Richard Dawkins [reviewed] for the New York Times”??
That’s preposterous. Dawkins is an evangelical athiest. That’s like having Ahmadinejad review “Satanic Verses.”
Also the lack of development of any new species in any of the billions of organisms in the area of Chernobyl with the billions of mutations and generations would support this conclusion.
A bishop and cardinal were sponsoring Copernicus' research into heliocentricity at the same time that Galileo was hauled before a (fallible) tribunal.
Galileo antagonized the Church because he wanted the Church to confirm his theory. Interestingly enough, Galileo's scientific evidence for his theory of heliocentricity was insufficient, at the time.
Huh? (1) At one point in time, they had no evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun. Did that mean the Earth DIDN'T revolve around the sun? (2) (Some forms of) Intelligent Design does not require a supernatural entity -- just an input different from purely random mutation. (My bet is some type of feedback that is not at all understood or even recognized yet.)
Why all these Creation threads? Is it part of some Design?
When global warming wipes out all life on earth, there won’t even be anybody left to witness the final proof that evolutionary theory is total bunk!
“He concedes that Darwinian processes can make new species’
Ooops. Did he just condemn himself to hell?
Right. That it is not a theory to begin with might contribute to that demise.
As for monotheism the reviewer writes:
“. . .He (Behe)was denounced by the self-styled defenders of science - biologists like Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne, and non-scientists like Michael Ruse and Barbara Forrest. They accused Behe. . . of trying to slip God (disguised as “the intelligent designer”) into public-school science classrooms.”
This controversy has been going on for awhile. Some of the scientific community fears that if ID is recognized as a valid alternative theory it can be interpreted by religious groups as a “scientific proof of God” and used as a political or legal argument to “pollute” education and science with religion.
I appreciate that the scientific method, in order to accomplish anything, can’t be mixed up with religion or mysticism or anything else because the scientist can become a root doctor casting juju.
As for atheism, Richard Dawkins, evolutionary scientist and author, reviewed Behe’s book for The New York Times. I can’t say for sure but I would guess Dawkins was asked to review the book because he is a critic of religion. Dawkins is a public, outspoken atheist. I believe Atheism is a religion. I can argue that but I can’t prove it.
As a layman I hope the scientific concept of Intelligence Design lingers long enough to be proved or disproved.
Why must you attempt to wedge religion into a science thread?
= 9
Natural Selection isn't "random"...it is "design within a system" in the form of an alogorithm of selecting the more effective direction. While it won't always proceed in the direction of what might be a most-efficient end structure, it does work to build complexity and functinality. In fact, "Natural Selection" is now being used in many fields where a computer model is allowed to select parameters that are applied in a next generation of a computer model...after repeated runs, the computer model is able to improve itself and get closer to a solution.
Behe seems to have missed the past 10 years, where it can be seen that intermediate steps do occur on the path to complex structures, sometimes for entirely different functions from the "final" structure.
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.