{"id":26,"date":"2009-06-23T12:36:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-23T12:36:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.goodcatholicbooks.org\/blog2\/?p=26"},"modified":"2009-06-23T12:36:00","modified_gmt":"2009-06-23T12:36:00","slug":"intelligent-design-behe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.goodcatholicbooks.org\/blog\/2009\/06\/intelligent-design-behe\/","title":{"rendered":"Intelligent Design – Behe"},"content":{"rendered":"

Two principal arguments are made for intelligent design: one based on complexity<\/em>, the other based on information<\/em>. These arguments for intelligent design may be seen in the work of two key proponents of the theory, Michael Behe and William Dembski. Behe, a practicing Catholic and microbiologist, was for a long time a Darwinist who saw no theological or scientific problems with the theory of the common descent of living beings by a process of random change and natural selection. That changed abruptly when he read the geneticist Michael Denton\u2019s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis<\/em>. He describes the experience as world-changing: \u201cWhen I laid the book down, I lived in a different world.\u201d1<\/sup><\/a> He began reading with a skeptical eye the claims for evolution in the scientific literature, and volunteered to lead a seminar titled \u201cPopular Arguments on Evolution,\u201d in which he and his students read and discussed pro- and anti-evolution books and articles, particularly Denton\u2019s <\/span>Evolution: A Theory in Crisis<\/em> and Richard Dawkin\u2019s <\/span>The Blind Watchmaker<\/em>. The next stage in his engagement with the theory of evolution came when he read the lawyer Phillip Johnson\u2019s book <\/span>Darwin on Trial<\/em>, which argued that if one did not assume materialism was true, then the evidence for random mutation and natural selection as the explanation of life on earth is very small indeed.2<\/sup><\/a> In the following months Behe became involved in debates on evolution with Phillip Johnson, and worked out the arguments that later became the basis for his own book <\/span>Darwin\u2019s Black Box<\/em>,3<\/sup><\/a> arguments that he believed made a unique contribution from the perspective of biochemistry.<\/span><\/p>\n

The key concept in Behe\u2019s argument is <\/span>irreducible complexity<\/em>. The argument begins with two premises: (1) certain parts of organisms, such as the mechanism for blood clotting, or the bacterial flagellum, are <\/span>complex<\/em>, that is, they are composed of many different parts; (2) <\/span>all<\/em> of these parts are necessary in order to achieve the function; in other words, the mechanism is <\/span>irreducibly<\/em> complex; the structure cannot be simpler and have the same function. The second step of the argument is that such an irreducibly complex mechanism cannot be built up gradually, by a process of natural selection. If the mechanism producing the function is irreducibly complex, then intermediate structures would have no function, and thus no value for the organism; they would not contribute to its living or reproducing, and so would not be promoted by natural selection.<\/span><\/p>\n

The concept of irreducible complexity as an objection to evolution by natural selection is not really new. Darwin himself recognized it: \u201cIf it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.\u201d4<\/sup><\/a> Behe\u2019s contribution was the application of this idea at the molecular level rather than at the level of large organs such as the eye. Complex bio-chemical processes are supposed to exemplify exactly such a complexity as Darwin spoke of. Behe proclaimed that design is clearly evident at the cellular level, and that this discovery \u201cmust be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science,\u201d rivaling those of Newton, Einstein, Lavoisier, <\/span>Schr\u00f6dinger, <\/span><\/span>Pasteur, and <\/span><\/span>Darwin.5<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

While the general principle is sound, its application is weak. A \u201cmolecular machine\u201d that requires each of its parts in order to perform its function could have been built up from parts with different functions. Indeed, this is just what the theory of evolution would predict! As the ancestors of horses were not simply \u201cimperfect horses,\u201d but were something other than horses, so one could expect the precursor of many biological systems to be not merely imperfect systems of the same type, but systems functioning somewhat differently.<\/p>\n

More generally, the argument that some biological system could not have been formed gradually is an argument based on ignorance: we don\u2019t know how, or at least don\u2019t know <\/span>exactly<\/em> how such-and-such a function evolved; therefore, it couldn\u2019t have evolved gradually. This argument is weak, unless we suppose that we know biochemistry so well that if there <\/span>were<\/em> a gradual way for the function to evolve, we would know it. Since our knowledge of biochemistry remains quite imperfect regarding many detailed points, the fact that we do not know <\/span>in detail<\/em> how gradual evolution of various functional systems could have happened is a weak argument that it is impossible. But in fact, possible paths of evolution have been sketched out for the very things, such as blood clotting, that Behe claims are <\/span>irreducibly complex<\/em>!6<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

1<\/a>Michael J. Behe, \u201cFrom Muttering to Mayhem: How Phillip Johnson Got Me Moving\u201d in Darwin\u2019s Nemesis<\/em>, ed. William A. Dembski, 42.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

2<\/a>Ibid., 44.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

3<\/a>Behe, Darwin\u2019s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution<\/em> (New York: The Free Press, 1996).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

4<\/a>Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species<\/em>, ch. 6.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

5<\/a>Darwin\u2019s Black Box<\/em>, 232\u2013233.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

6<\/a>See, for example, Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin\u2019s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution<\/em> (New York: Harper Perennial, 2000), 134\u2013158.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two principal arguments are made for intelligent design: one based on complexity, the other based on information. These arguments for intelligent design may be seen in the work of two key proponents of the theory, Michael Behe and William Dembski. Behe, a practicing Catholic and microbiologist, was for a long time a Darwinist who saw […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodcatholicbooks.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodcatholicbooks.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodcatholicbooks.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodcatholicbooks.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodcatholicbooks.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodcatholicbooks.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodcatholicbooks.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodcatholicbooks.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodcatholicbooks.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}