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. |
And you might be interested in pursuing a logical argument and presenting evidence for your position, instead of making silly posts about broken glass.
This sums up what some people buy in regard to design by stupidity. Stupidity, by definition, is lack of intelligence. When intelligent design is rejected we are left with design by stupidity. Methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are by definition – ‘stupidity’ because they lack intelligence. How much are you willing to pay for the rare items? Perhaps a flagellum? A stupid universe? A mind (your mind)-- all from this stupidity?
Repeating the word "stupidity" six times does not constitute an actual rebuttal to anything I wrote in my post.
Nor is it correct to say that "stupidity" is "lack of intelligence". Stupidity is intelligence applied poorly. Attempting to rebut substantive points by consciously choosing to snicker about broken glass sales is stupid. Rain forming in clouds and falling due to the interplay of natural forces without intelligent intervention is not an example of "stupidity" at work. Neither is the process of evolution, which like the formation of clouds and rain and watershed systems, brings about structure through the shaping actions of natural events.
That's an entirely different thing than, say, this:
What's "clear" is that someone has an oddly overinflated sense of his own significance.
Since August 25, 2003 (the last time I corrected a post by AndrewC until just recently, according to the "My Comments" page), I've made a whopping total of three (3) posts concerning something he's posted. That's an average of one every two months. If that's "obsession", then I don't think I'm doing it right.
For comparison, in the same time period I've made nine (9) replies to the guy who posts the Useful Idiot Caption-A-Rama threads, if that helps to give an idea of the relative importance I place on the two Freepers.
So I don't think *I'm* the one who's obsessed here, especially since AndrewC posts one of these odd "he's stalking me!" posts (e.g. "I also seem to have attracted a stalker") to just about any thread we happen to both end up in, and a while back, over several weeks he brought me up as a topic in at least four different threads that I never once participated in, complaining about how I had at one time pointed out that he appeared to be trolling in some of his more evasive responses on one thread. Now *that's* obsession.
But hey, if he gets a smile out of imagining that he's somehow worth any special attention, I'm happy to bring some joy into his life, he may well need it.
I also get joy out of the irony of someone saying that I "deserve no reply" -- as he makes a point of replying to me.
I told a poster who was itching for a confrontation to lay off. He refused to do so.
That's a... fascinating way to summarize that thread. What actually happened is that AndrewC spent every one of his first *27* posts on a science thread (New Dinosaur Species Found in India) not once talking about anything related to science, but instead wholly concerning himself with playing the self-appointed role of "thread cop" and handing out gold stars or detention slips (mostly the latter) to express his opinions about who was being "civil" enough for him. Sample excerpts from his posts: "Your shallow treatment of others is evident", "If you wish to joke, do it by freepmail", "Am I supposed to feel bad for this comment from a hypocrite?", "You have no moral compass", "I will be happy to not hear from you", and so on.
This was all *before* I had even posted to the thread myself. And yet now *I'm* the one who was "itching for a confrontation" in that thread? Okay, pull the other leg now.
The post I made that caused AndrewC to snap was this one (in reply to a post of his where he *finally* got around to something resembling the topic of the thread):
Oh, the horror, the horror... Yup, I'm just one of those incredibly "confrontational" guys, you betcha. I mean, who could possibly have borne such withering flames? Clearly I pushed the man beyond all human endurance.Wind and a little time turns sandstone into arches that resemble flying buttresses. It does not follow, to many people, that more time using the same process will result in the formation of Notre Dame Cathedral.That's because "many people" fail to take into account why a process which includes variation, reproduction, and selection is very different from erosion, and is capable of much more.
If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it's a valid comparison.
I merely commented that I am evidently an obsession to him since I have not addressed him and he has entered into the discussions I have had with others.
*boggle*. Well heck, by *that* measure, then AndrewC must be "obsessed" with steve-b, since "steve-b has not addressed AndrewC and AndrewC has entered into the discussions that steve-b had with others" -- like the post of his I refuted.
Hint: It's a public forum. When we engage in threads, we *all* "enter into discussions" that people who "have not addressed us" are "having with others". If that's some sort of "obsession", I guess we all must be obsessed.
Well then tell me, is post 80 an attempt at a rational exchange,
It was. That's why I did that "addressing all the points the person had made and analyzed them in detail, and provided citations for my references" thing.
Were any of the responses to my post #80 an attempt at a rational rebuttal? Nope. Just complaints about my "attitude", sidestepping the actual issues I had raised about what was wrong with the original post.
I see a lot of "how *dare* you refute my post and find its flaws amusing, you callous brute!" replies on these threads, almost all of them coming from one side.
or is it belittling right from the start deserving of no response?
It is I suppose a character flaw of mine that I cannot pretend that a logically incoherent argument deserves to be treated with great respect, or that the author should remain free from having his sophistry pointed out, just to spare his ego from the embarrassment of learning that his post wasn't as clever as he thought it was.
But if that bothers anyone, there's a simple solution: Make better arguments next time.
As for lack of any effective response, I am perfectly happy to have my detailed refutations of flawed arguments remain unchallenged. It saves us all so much time.
The world will go on without my answer.
Then it's a win-win situation for all concerned. I'm glad we can all come away feeling good about these exchanges.
Even better would have been "irreducible functionality", since the real issue that Behe fixates on is not "complexity", per se (since even something as simple as a mousetrap can be declared "IC"), but functionality itself (or the lack thereof).
Nonetheless, whatever he chooses to call it, the notion still suffers from the many flaws that have already been pointed out.
I think you're on to something here.
You might want to read more of the posts on this thread before you finalize your opinion on whether Behe's book is actually scientific or not.
He addressed each of your points -- and skewered them on the facts. If you find that belittling or patronizing, sir, you're in for an extremely rough life.
BTW, would posting snide little cartoon pictures of Darwin be considered "patronizing and belittling" or is this a one-way street like racism is to liberals?
What facts did he present? He changed what I stated and then attacked that changed thing. I will only address the first "lie" he presented. I wrote ---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.
This is what he wrote --- Error #1: Note the rhetorical sleight-of-hand in the middle of the sentence, which magically changes from talking about how a component must be *useful* enough to be maintained, to (abracadabra) being *critical* and thus so indispensible that the organism can't survive without it performing its current function.
He has the gall to accuse me of sleight of hand yet he puts words into what I wrote. I said nothing about an organism or its survival(I have been arguing about genes and not organisms for goodness sakes). I stated "criticality for its present function". Do you know what a critical point for a function is?
Definition of a critical point: a critical point on f(x) occurs at x0 if and only if either f '(x0) is zero or the derivative doesn't exist.
And further note, I placed parentheses around "remain" for a reason. I realize that fitness can oscillate around the critical point.
That was a new one on me. At least it's treatable.
... and some unexplained shortness of breath ...
Among the other stuff you're probably looking at, be sure to get your thyroid levels tested. Hyperthyroidism will definitely give you shortness of breath. That happened to me two years ago. Before I knew what was wrong I tried to treat it with running, but hyperthyroidism makes you run down to begin with. Running more just makes you more run down.
Stay well.
And you might want to read Behe's book to understand what I'm talking about. Besides that, why would the posts of a few folks online with an axe to grind, change my mind? You can either make up your own mind, or you can line up and goose-step right along with those who fear any ideas that challenge their cherished secular beliefs. You want to denegrate a man and his work based upon ther blatherings of people on this thread? I suely hope that is not your modus operandi for all of life's tough choices. Perhaps the best idea would be to read the book yourself before you start throwing stones . . .
Next time send him one of these:
But if we insert the adjective “functional” – i.e. “functional complexity” - then we do have a new meaning, both in math and biology:
Until his death, the mathematician and doctor of medicine Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (1920-1996) was Professor of the Faculty of Sciences at the University of Paris and a member of the Academy of Sciences...
Q: What do you mean by functional complexity?
S: It is impossible to grasp the phenomenon of life without that concept, the two words each expressing a crucial and essential idea. The laboratory biologists' normal and unforced vernacular is almost always couched in functional terms: the function of an eye, the function of an enzyme, or a ribosome, or the fruit fly's antennae -- their function; the concept by which such language is animated is one perfectly adapted to reality. Physiologists see this better than anyone else. Within their world, everything is a matter of function, the various systems that they study -- circulatory, digestive, excretory, and the like -- all characterized in simple, ineliminable functional terms. At the level of molecular biology, functionality may seem to pose certain conceptual problems, perhaps because the very notion of an organ has disappeared when biological relationships are specified in biochemical terms; but appearances are misleading, certain functions remaining even in the absence of an organ or organ systems. Complexity is also a crucial concept. Even among unicellular organisms, the mechanisms involved in the separation and fusion of chromosomes during mitosis and meiosis are processes of unbelieveable complexity and subtlety. Organisms present themselves to us as a complex ensemble of functional interrelationships. If one is going to explain their evolution, one must at the same time explain their functionality and their complexity.
Q: What is it that makes functional complexity so difficult to comprehend?
S: The evolution of living creatures appears to require an essential ingredient, a specific form of organization. Whatever it is, it lies beyond anything that our present knowledge of physics or chemistry might suggest; it is a property upon which formal logic sheds absolutely no light. Whether gradualists or saltationists, Darwinians have too simple a conception of biology, rather like a locksmith improbably convinced that his handful of keys will open any lock. Darwinians, for example, tend to think of the gene rather as if it were the expression of a simple command: do this, get that done, drop that side chain. Walter Gehring's work on the regulatory genes controlling the development of the insect eye reflects this conception. The relevant genes may well function this way, but the story on this level is surely incomplete, and Darwinian theory is not apt to fill in the pieces.
Q: You claim that biologists think of a gene as a command. Could you be more specific?
S: Schematically, a gene is like a unit of information. It has simple binary properties. When active, it is an elementary information-theoretic unit, the cascade of gene instructions resembling the cascade involved in specifying a recipe. Now let us return to the example of the eye. Darwinists imagine that it requires what? A thousand or two thousand genes to assemble an eye, the specification of the organ thus requiring one or two thousand units of information? This is absurd! Suppose that a European firm proposes to manufacture an entirely new household appliance in a Southeast Asian factory. And suppose that for commercial reasons, the firm does not wish to communicate to the factory any details of the appliance's function -- how it works, what purposes it will serve. With only a few thousand bits of information, the factory is not going to proceed very far or very fast. A few thousand bits of information, after all, yields only a single paragraph of text. The appliance in question is bound to be vastly simpler than the eye; charged with its manufacture, the factory will yet need to know the significance of the operations to which they have committed themselves in engaging their machinery. This can be achieved only if they already have some sense of the object's nature before they undertake to manufacture it. A considerable body of knowledge, held in common between the European firm and its Asian factory, is necessary before manufacturing instructions may be executed.
Q: Would you argue that the genome does not contain the requisite information for explaining organisms?
S: Not according to the understanding of the genome we now possess. The biological properties invoked by biologists are in this respect quite insufficient; while biologists may understand that a gene triggers the production of a particular protein, that knowledge -- that kind of knowledge -- does not allow them to comprehend how one or two thousand genes suffice to direct the course of embryonic development.
Q: You are going to be accused of preformationism...
S: And of many other crimes. My position is nevertheless strictly a rational one. I've formulated a problem that appears significant to me: how is it that with so few elementary instructions, the materials of life can fabricate objects that are so marvelously complicated and efficient? This property with which they are endowed -- just what is its nature? Nothing within our actual knowledge of physics and chemistry allows us intellectually to grasp it. If one starts from an evolutionary point of view, it must be acknowledged that in one manner or another, the earliest fish contained the capacity, and the appropriate neural wiring, to bring into existence organs which they did not possess or even need, but which would be the common property of their successors when they left the water for the firm ground, or for the air.
Thanks for posting !
Well, I have not read the entire thread. In fact, I wasn't planning on getting too involved because we all know we can't get along - nothing "brilliantly" posted by either side of this argument will change any hearts and minds - not withstanding humorous lines of text and footnotes (*here's a cookie*). It will amaze me for the rest of my life how God has revealed himself again and again through his Creation, only to find that His Creation thinks it can explain itself without Him. Cute. All knees will bow and all minds will aknowledge the Glory of God someday - I'll let you try and debate Him then.
Good day, and God Bless genetlemen.
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.