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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-253 next last
bacterial drive train schematic

Evolutionary Origin of Bacterial Flagellum Through Cooption: A Critical Survey

1 posted on 02/18/2004 3:41:01 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
More desperate dishonesty from the creationoids.
2 posted on 02/18/2004 3:47:29 PM PST by balrog666 (Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
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.

I'm not sure what the point of this is. That we don't know with 100% certitude what each part in this bacteria does? That's not news.
3 posted on 02/18/2004 3:55:15 PM PST by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
OK let's say for the sake of argument that there are flaws in evolution. It's still a scientific theory, sensitive to evidence.

Creation is hedonism. Intellectual hedonism. It means: I believe X because it makes me feel good to believe X. That's not a scientific theory. That's faith.
4 posted on 02/18/2004 4:00:57 PM PST by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
You are the result of stupidity or intelligence Balrog. You have picked your position and continue to argue accordingly…
5 posted on 02/18/2004 4:01:44 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
You are the result of stupidity or intelligence Balrog.

You are too. Blame your parents.

6 posted on 02/18/2004 4:03:23 PM PST by balrog666 (Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Both Behe and Gene ‘believe’ in evolution but have problems with the mechanism (i.e. stupidity).
7 posted on 02/18/2004 4:08:07 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Very Good! The “Nanny-nanny-boo-boo” response.
You are consistent.
8 posted on 02/18/2004 4:11:03 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
9 posted on 02/18/2004 4:26:09 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lelio
I'm not sure what the point of this is.

I'm beginning to think that this line of reasoning can be used in explaining the shift in thinking the earth was flat to being a sphere: man just couldn't comprehend the complexity involved in designing a shape that man couldn't fall off the edge of.
10 posted on 02/18/2004 4:26:45 PM PST by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
It's obviously possible to make useable mousetraps out of surplus parts from other stuff. I don't mean extensively modified other stuff, I mean old junk. You can make all kinds of stuff out of old junk, if you don't mind your stuff looking like it's made out of old junk.

I'm way past the point of wondering whether Behe can see the problems with his original arguments. Way past.
11 posted on 02/18/2004 4:32:03 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Imagine that! A evo tries to derail a crevo thread not posted by one of their own. Surprise.

(Don't worry - I'll start a new thread if this one gets yanked)
12 posted on 02/18/2004 4:39:26 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
irreducible complexity

Oh, I thought this was about Windows - never mind...

13 posted on 02/18/2004 4:39:46 PM PST by talleyman (E=mc2 (before taxes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; All
Might as well use this thread to let it all hang out:
The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," by Kenneth R. Miller.
14 posted on 02/18/2004 4:40:06 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Festival of festivals" placemarker
15 posted on 02/18/2004 4:42:07 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: talleyman
"Irreducible," not "irreparable."
16 posted on 02/18/2004 4:44:26 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Did you miss this?
Evolutionary Origin of Bacterial Flagellum Through Cooption: A Critical Survey
17 posted on 02/18/2004 4:49:36 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Did you miss this?
Evolutionary Origin of Bacterial Flagellum Through Cooption: A Critical Survey

I missed it,

Can you tell me what peer reviewed journal this piece appears in?

18 posted on 02/18/2004 5:04:50 PM PST by qam1 (Are Republicans the party of Reagan or the party of Bloomberg and Pataki?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Nice analysis. At least you admitted you didn't look at it.
19 posted on 02/18/2004 5:23:24 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Well, you got me… The article I cited should be peer-reviewed.
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…

In the interim…
Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
-Frank J. Tipler

20 posted on 02/18/2004 5:35:50 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-253 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