MrFrankZito
16th July 2005, 11:30 AM
NOTE: This paper is too lengthy to put in one post. The second half will be the first reply.
Here is a copy of my final paper for my college class titled "The Philosophy of Evolution." In this paper, which scored highly, I try to debunk and expose some Intelligent Design nonsense. Feedback/debate/criticism heartily welcomed!
...
Intelligent Design Arguments, Evolutionary Retorts
Michael Behe is an "Intelligent Design" theorist. In a paper he wrote, titled Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference and available for review at [link deleted], he presents a condensed version of his case for Intelligent Design and against the theory of evolution by natural selection. The key tenet of his argument for design is "irreducible complexity," which he alleges is present throughout the biological world and impossible to achieve through evolution by natural selection. To define this phenomenon, he writes:
By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several 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. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.
Behe uses his famous mousetrap argument to explain his point, turning it into an argument by analogy, citing both human and non-human natural structures as analogous to a mousetrap in the impossibility of their formation by successive modification.
Behe begins by explicating the mousetrap. A mousetrap has 1. A platform to serve as the base; 2. A hammer to trap the mouse; 3. A spring that is connected to the base that will hold the hammer in place, 4. A catch to release the hammer when set; 5. A bar, connected to the catch, to hold back the hammer when the trap is set. Behe argues that each part of the mousetrap works with all the other parts and that each part is absolutely necessary for the trap to function. He correctly states that if, for example, the hammer was taken out, the mousetrap would effectively cease working. So, he argues, a mousetrap is an irreducibly complex system that must have been designed, since it could not have been created through succession with modification--any precursors, he says, would be worthless.
Behe uses an argument by analogy to connect the mousetrap to biological systems, saying that the design inference he uses with mousetraps must also apply to things like cilia. He goes into detail explaining the complexity of cilia, writing:
Cilia are composed of at least a half dozen proteins: alpha-tubulin, beta-tubulin, dynein, nexin, spoke protein, and a central bridge protein. These combine to perform one task, ciliary motion, and all of these proteins must be present for the cilium to function. If the tubulins are absent, then there are no filaments to slide; if the dynein is missing, then the cilium remains rigid and motionless; if nexin or the other connecting proteins are missing, then the axoneme falls apart when the filaments slide.
So he argues, missing any part of the modern cilium, function would be impossible and therefore the remains would be of no use. Therefore, half a cilium would be nonfunctional and not favored by natural selection, and therefore the modern cilia would never come to be. After all, natural selection cannot anticipate future gain, and so immediate gain must exist for something to be selected for. Behe uses the identical argument for complex structures like the human eye and bacterial flagellum, as well as functions like blood clotting and photosynthesis.
Even before moving to objections scientists have raised to Behe’s argument, I wish to name a few of my own. First, Behe talks in the paper of “black boxes.” Saying that sometimes “a key piece of a particular scientific puzzle [is] beyond the understanding of the age,” Behe defines the term as “a machine or structure or process that does something, but the actual mechanism by which it accomplishes its task is unknown.” While arguing for a precise scientific explanation of how structures he calls irreducibly complex could have come to be, he writes, “This is the level of explanation that Biological science eventually must aim for. In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated.” Unfortunately, Behe is now just setting himself up for trouble.
Behe here is clearly guilty of the same offense of which he accuses evolutionists. He is assuming design without being able to explain a bit about how it happened--not a single step in the process. He is looking at the structure of the human eye, assuming design, and leaving that black box shut, not peering into the details of how such design could actually occur. God is not an explanation because God is a way of stopping the cycle of questions. By citing God, research into a particular phenomenon ends--no more knowledge can be gained. For example, think about an earthquake. Say, 200 years ago, it was decided that God produced earthquakes. That would have prevented discovery of the truths we know now. In this way, God is a copout for what we have yet to fully understand; worse yet, God is an impediment to such discovery.
Moving on to a formal retort to Behe’s argument, I visited the Web site [link deleted]. Immediately, the writer points out what I just explained--that Behe offers no explanation of how Intelligent Design works in terms of steps, laws, or models. He infers design in exactly the same way he accuses evolutionists of inferring selection. Immediately, the site dismantles the key tenet of Behe’s argument: that irreducibly complex systems cannot have been created through succession with modification. First, the site reminds us that biochemical structures “evolve layer upon layer, contingency upon contingency, always in flux, and retooling to serve current functions.” That means, if we use the mousetrap example momentarily, the function could have changed over the course of time. Say the base came into existence first. It could have been selected for as an effective paperweight. Then say the hammer and spring mutated into existence. Combining all three now, we find ourselves with something that can clip several pieces of paper together. And so it continues until the function of mouse catching comes to be.
Another Behe falsifier is called “improvements become necessities.” H. Allen Orr writes:
An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn’t essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system.
Orr helpfully uses this theoretical objection to Behe’s argument for more concrete purposes when commenting that the creation of lungs from air bladders used to be simply a non-essential improvement for terrestrial exploration. When organisms grew to be terrestrially bound, however, that improvement became crucial to survival. This shows how as mutations led away from aquatic life and toward terrestrial existence, what was once an improvement transformed itself into an essentiality, all without design.
Another anti-Behe attack utilized criticizes his argument by analogy as adequate proof for his irreducible complexity theory. The writers of this site say that Behe essentially argues:
A mousetrap is “irreducibly complex” - it requires all of its parts to work properly
A mousetrap is a product of design.
The bacterial flagellum is “irreducibly complex” - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
Therefore the flagellum is like a mousetrap.
Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.
This is an example of an inductive argument, and so the conclusion presented is not a certainty; it is merely very likely if the premises are valid. But, the comparison is not a strong one because while we know the process by which a mousetrap is designed, as previously stated, we have no such process for how biological things could have been intelligently designed (again, God is just a means of halting investigation). Besides that possibly fatal flaw, the argument also has a couple of other holes.
For example, Behe does not even attempt to resolve the issue of how the designer was designed. A designer who created such a wondrous thing as the human eye must be equally or more wondrous himself--and so equally needy of being designed. In addition, the Web site explains, "To Behe, a system has evolved when he, or others, can imagine how it has evolved, otherwise it was a product of intelligent design." This is clearly insufficient evidence to disprove the theory of evolution, and a rationale that Richard Dawkins would likely term "the Argument from Personal Incredulity." Quite simply, evolution is a slow process of tiny modifications. Things only become clear in retrospect, so it's hardly surprising that some products of evolution cannot be picked apart right now. After all, evolution has occurred for billions of years, but we discovered the phenomenon less than 200 years ago. Behe wishing for a complete explanation of every evolved structure, even those perhaps still evolving, is blatantly setting evolution up to fail.
End of Part 1
Part 2 will be the first reply
Here is a copy of my final paper for my college class titled "The Philosophy of Evolution." In this paper, which scored highly, I try to debunk and expose some Intelligent Design nonsense. Feedback/debate/criticism heartily welcomed!
...
Intelligent Design Arguments, Evolutionary Retorts
Michael Behe is an "Intelligent Design" theorist. In a paper he wrote, titled Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference and available for review at [link deleted], he presents a condensed version of his case for Intelligent Design and against the theory of evolution by natural selection. The key tenet of his argument for design is "irreducible complexity," which he alleges is present throughout the biological world and impossible to achieve through evolution by natural selection. To define this phenomenon, he writes:
By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several 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. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.
Behe uses his famous mousetrap argument to explain his point, turning it into an argument by analogy, citing both human and non-human natural structures as analogous to a mousetrap in the impossibility of their formation by successive modification.
Behe begins by explicating the mousetrap. A mousetrap has 1. A platform to serve as the base; 2. A hammer to trap the mouse; 3. A spring that is connected to the base that will hold the hammer in place, 4. A catch to release the hammer when set; 5. A bar, connected to the catch, to hold back the hammer when the trap is set. Behe argues that each part of the mousetrap works with all the other parts and that each part is absolutely necessary for the trap to function. He correctly states that if, for example, the hammer was taken out, the mousetrap would effectively cease working. So, he argues, a mousetrap is an irreducibly complex system that must have been designed, since it could not have been created through succession with modification--any precursors, he says, would be worthless.
Behe uses an argument by analogy to connect the mousetrap to biological systems, saying that the design inference he uses with mousetraps must also apply to things like cilia. He goes into detail explaining the complexity of cilia, writing:
Cilia are composed of at least a half dozen proteins: alpha-tubulin, beta-tubulin, dynein, nexin, spoke protein, and a central bridge protein. These combine to perform one task, ciliary motion, and all of these proteins must be present for the cilium to function. If the tubulins are absent, then there are no filaments to slide; if the dynein is missing, then the cilium remains rigid and motionless; if nexin or the other connecting proteins are missing, then the axoneme falls apart when the filaments slide.
So he argues, missing any part of the modern cilium, function would be impossible and therefore the remains would be of no use. Therefore, half a cilium would be nonfunctional and not favored by natural selection, and therefore the modern cilia would never come to be. After all, natural selection cannot anticipate future gain, and so immediate gain must exist for something to be selected for. Behe uses the identical argument for complex structures like the human eye and bacterial flagellum, as well as functions like blood clotting and photosynthesis.
Even before moving to objections scientists have raised to Behe’s argument, I wish to name a few of my own. First, Behe talks in the paper of “black boxes.” Saying that sometimes “a key piece of a particular scientific puzzle [is] beyond the understanding of the age,” Behe defines the term as “a machine or structure or process that does something, but the actual mechanism by which it accomplishes its task is unknown.” While arguing for a precise scientific explanation of how structures he calls irreducibly complex could have come to be, he writes, “This is the level of explanation that Biological science eventually must aim for. In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated.” Unfortunately, Behe is now just setting himself up for trouble.
Behe here is clearly guilty of the same offense of which he accuses evolutionists. He is assuming design without being able to explain a bit about how it happened--not a single step in the process. He is looking at the structure of the human eye, assuming design, and leaving that black box shut, not peering into the details of how such design could actually occur. God is not an explanation because God is a way of stopping the cycle of questions. By citing God, research into a particular phenomenon ends--no more knowledge can be gained. For example, think about an earthquake. Say, 200 years ago, it was decided that God produced earthquakes. That would have prevented discovery of the truths we know now. In this way, God is a copout for what we have yet to fully understand; worse yet, God is an impediment to such discovery.
Moving on to a formal retort to Behe’s argument, I visited the Web site [link deleted]. Immediately, the writer points out what I just explained--that Behe offers no explanation of how Intelligent Design works in terms of steps, laws, or models. He infers design in exactly the same way he accuses evolutionists of inferring selection. Immediately, the site dismantles the key tenet of Behe’s argument: that irreducibly complex systems cannot have been created through succession with modification. First, the site reminds us that biochemical structures “evolve layer upon layer, contingency upon contingency, always in flux, and retooling to serve current functions.” That means, if we use the mousetrap example momentarily, the function could have changed over the course of time. Say the base came into existence first. It could have been selected for as an effective paperweight. Then say the hammer and spring mutated into existence. Combining all three now, we find ourselves with something that can clip several pieces of paper together. And so it continues until the function of mouse catching comes to be.
Another Behe falsifier is called “improvements become necessities.” H. Allen Orr writes:
An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn’t essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system.
Orr helpfully uses this theoretical objection to Behe’s argument for more concrete purposes when commenting that the creation of lungs from air bladders used to be simply a non-essential improvement for terrestrial exploration. When organisms grew to be terrestrially bound, however, that improvement became crucial to survival. This shows how as mutations led away from aquatic life and toward terrestrial existence, what was once an improvement transformed itself into an essentiality, all without design.
Another anti-Behe attack utilized criticizes his argument by analogy as adequate proof for his irreducible complexity theory. The writers of this site say that Behe essentially argues:
A mousetrap is “irreducibly complex” - it requires all of its parts to work properly
A mousetrap is a product of design.
The bacterial flagellum is “irreducibly complex” - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
Therefore the flagellum is like a mousetrap.
Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.
This is an example of an inductive argument, and so the conclusion presented is not a certainty; it is merely very likely if the premises are valid. But, the comparison is not a strong one because while we know the process by which a mousetrap is designed, as previously stated, we have no such process for how biological things could have been intelligently designed (again, God is just a means of halting investigation). Besides that possibly fatal flaw, the argument also has a couple of other holes.
For example, Behe does not even attempt to resolve the issue of how the designer was designed. A designer who created such a wondrous thing as the human eye must be equally or more wondrous himself--and so equally needy of being designed. In addition, the Web site explains, "To Behe, a system has evolved when he, or others, can imagine how it has evolved, otherwise it was a product of intelligent design." This is clearly insufficient evidence to disprove the theory of evolution, and a rationale that Richard Dawkins would likely term "the Argument from Personal Incredulity." Quite simply, evolution is a slow process of tiny modifications. Things only become clear in retrospect, so it's hardly surprising that some products of evolution cannot be picked apart right now. After all, evolution has occurred for billions of years, but we discovered the phenomenon less than 200 years ago. Behe wishing for a complete explanation of every evolved structure, even those perhaps still evolving, is blatantly setting evolution up to fail.
End of Part 1
Part 2 will be the first reply