Posted on 02/17/2003 5:43:11 PM PST by CalConservative
When I read Ken Miller's contribution to the volume I'm editing with Michael Ruse ( Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA , Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2004), I expected I'd have till the actual publication date next year to respond to it. But since Miller's contribution has now officially appeared on his website (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html -- it is titled "The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of 'Irreducible Complexity'"), I want to comment on it at this time. I'll go through Miller's paper sequentially and respond bullet-point fashion:
The Argument from Personal Incredulity:
Miller claims that the problem with anti-evolutionists like Michael Behe and me is a failure of imagination -- that we personally cannot "imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, or structure." He then emphasizes that such claims are "personal," merely pointing up the limitations of those who make them. Let's get real. The problem is not that we in the intelligent design community, whom Miller incorrectly calls "anti-evolutionists," just can't imagine how those systems arose. The problem is that Ken Miller and the entire biological community haven't figured out how those systems arose. It's not a question of personal incredulity but of global disciplinary failure (the discipline here being biology) and gross theoretical inadequacy (the theory here being Darwin's). Darwin's theory, without which nothing in biology is supposed to make sense, in fact offers no insight into how the flagellum arose. If the biological community had even an inkling of how such systems arose by naturalistic mechanisms, Miller would not -- a full six years after the publication of Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe -- be lamely gesturing at the type three secretory system as a possible evolutionary precursor to the flagellum. It would suffice simply to provide a detailed explanation of how a system like the bacterial flagellum arose by Darwinian means. Miller's paper, despite its intimidating title ("The Flagellum Unspun") does nothing to answer that question.
Getting from Irreducible Complexity to Design:
Miller, in line with his personal incredulity criticism, charges design proponents of reasoning directly from the premise "Shucks, no one has figured out how the flagellum arose" to the conclusion "Gee, it must have been designed." Miller, despite a long exposure to ID thinkers and their writings, continually misses a crucial connecting link in the argument. So let me spell out the premises of the argument as well as its conclusion: Certain biological systems have a feature, call it IC (irreducible complexity). Darwinians don't have a clue how biological systems with that feature originated (Miller disputes this premise, but we'll come back to it). We know that intelligent agency has the causal power to produce systems that exhibit IC (e.g., many human artifacts exhibit IC). Therefore, biological systems that exhibit IC are likely to be designed. Design theorists, in attributing design to systems that exhibit IC, are simply doing what scientists do generally, which is to attempt to formulate a causally adequate explanation of the phenomenon in question.
Irreducible Complexity Is Not Properly Ascribed to the Bacterial Flagellum:
According to Miller, Behe's claim that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex is false. If Miller is right, then Behe and the intelligent design movement are in deep trouble. Think of it: Behe goes to all this bother to formulate some feature of biochemical systems that is a clear marker of intelligent agency and that decisively precludes the Darwinian mechanism. Behe then asserts that the bacterial flagellum exhibits that feature. Rather than argue about whether that feature reliably signals design or effectively precludes Darwinism, Miller claims to show that when it comes to the design community's best example of irreducible complexity -- the bacterial flagellum -- that it isn't even irreducibly complex. What idiots these design theorists must be if they can't even apply correctly the very concepts they've defined!
I'll let Behe respond for himself to this line of criticism. Behe's response will appear in the same volume that I'm editing with Michael Ruse (the one featuring Miller's piece discussed here). Miller has been recycling this criticism for some time now (the first time I heard it was at the Design and Its Critics conference at Concordia University, Mequon, Wisconsin, June 2000). This time around Behe is responding to Miller's criticism at a debate between the two of them at the American Museum of Natural History (April 23, 2002). Behe (2004) writes:
"If nothing else, one has to admire the breathtaking audacity of verbally trying to turn another severe problem for Darwinism into an advantage. In recent years it has been shown that the bacterial flagellum is an even more sophisticated system than had been thought. Not only does it act as a rotary propulsion device, it also contains within itself an elegant mechanism to transport the proteins that make up the outer portion of the machine, from the inside of the cell to the outside. (Aizawa 1996) Without blinking, Miller asserted that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex because some proteins of the flagellum could be missing and the remainder could still transport proteins, perhaps independently. (Proteins similar -- but not identical -- to some found in the flagellum occur in the type III secretory system of some bacteria. See Hueck 1998). Again he was equivocating, switching the focus from the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine to the ability of a subset of the system to transport proteins across a membrane. However, taking away the parts of the flagellum certainly destroys the ability of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine, as I have argued. Thus, contra Miller, the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex. What's more, the function of transporting proteins has as little directly to do with the function of rotary propulsion as a toothpick has to do with a mousetrap. So discovering the supportive function of transporting proteins tells us precisely nothing about how Darwinian processes might have put together a rotary propulsion machine."
To this let me add: A system is irreducibly complex in Behe's sense if all its parts are indispensable to preserving the system's basic function. That an irreducibly complex system may have subsystems that have functions of their own (functions distinct from that of the original system) is therefore allowed in the definition. It seems that Miller is unclear about the distinction between a definition and an argument . Irreducible complexity is a well-defined notion that is appropriately and ascertainably applied to the bacterial flagellum. Miller's concern ultimately seems not over the definition but over its use as an argument to rebut Darwinism. Miller's point here generally is that if subsystems can be found with functions of their own (perforce different from that of the original system since otherwise the original system would not be irreducibly complex), then those subsystems and their functions can be grist for selection's mill and underwrite a Darwinian account of how the original system arose. Let's now turn to that possibility.
The full article is here
(Excerpt) Read more at designinference.com ...
Miller can hem and haw all he likes, but if he was the scientist he claims to be, instead of an evolutionist prostitute, he would realize that there is one very simple, very easy to perform (nowadays) test for the irreducible complexity of the flagellum. The test is simply to 'knock out' each of the genes that compose it and see if the system still works. Again if he was a true scientist, he would know that this test has been performed and that if any of the 40+ genes involved in it are 'knocked out' will completely keep the system from functioning.
That's an astonishingly fallacious "argument." This guy is a math prof?
We know that intelligent agency has the causal power to produce systems that exhibit FL ("four legs" e.g., many human artifacts like tables and chairs exhibit FL). Therefore, biological systems that exhibit FL are likely to be designed. For example, cats and dogs.Why does anyone take him seriously?
A couple of great phrases worth remembering.
In regard to the flagellum, I believe Paul Nelson (in the chat you posted) states something relevant:
“…You wouldn't say we have a "gap" in our understanding of basic physics, if someone wanted to build a real-time communication system between Earth and Mars. Rather, given what we know about electromagnetic transmissions (that carry a signal), it will take about 3.5 minutes for a signal to travel from Earth to mars (and another 3.5 for a reply to come back). That's how the world really works. In a parallel sense, if the developmental variation of animals is fundamentally constrained, then it would be a mistake to try to explain how it *isn't* constrained (and evolved from a common ancestor)…”
Now on to “Miller's Foray into Theology”
The “orthodox Catholic" and "orthodox Darwinian” stance is a bit confusing to me. I have listened to this argument first hand from friends and acquaintances only to come to a stalemate on several issues.
Miller’s quote is familiar:
"The indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay."
“Indeed, what are we to make of this Jesus fellow, who walks on water, multiplies loaves and fishes, gets born of a virgin, and then resurrects after being crucified?”
Please let me state that I do not believe I have all the answers. (Nor do I claim to know what is in another mans heart) When reading anything; context, author, and prose is important. But if we are to believe miracles are to just be explained by natural occurrences, I submit Luke 5: 21-26 and ask “Whether is easier?”
At this point, I would like to expand on Mr. Dembski’s statements. We have a scientific environment that rejects anything religious (in a scientific discussion) but somewhat embraces religion in a cultural sense. It is the ‘intellectual atheist’ that I would like to single out here.
We are all aware of those who may believe what they believe without regard to science. This is true of a religious person as well as an atheistic person but as the religious individual (without regard for science) appeals to religion for morality and truth, to where does the ‘intellectual atheist’ appeal? Where would morality, truth, love, and individuality come from if not from science? How would one choose to explain this if not with science? The Constitution? The culture?
These items come from mankind – so where does mankind come from? Science?
Religion means many things to many people:
re·li·gion
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
If religion and science should truly be separated, how do we do this for the ‘intellectual atheist’?
If there was no reason for faith, there would be no reason for scientists excluding anything religious from it. It is because the reasons to believe are so overwhelming when we look at nature that the atheists are trying to make this part of scientific dogma so that even when evidence is found it must be dismissed. It is the politization of science.
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.