This week, the Veritas foundation, a Christian apologetics group, is holding a series of talks at Stanford, which I found out about last Thursday. Yesterday, two of the talks were by Dr. Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, and the author of Darwin�s Black Box, in which he advances his claim of intelligent design in biological systems and that certain biochemical systems are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved by natural selection. As an evolutionary biologist, I felt the need to attend his talks�and since I�m Brendan�s unofficial science correspondent, I figured I�d take the opportunity to report on what happened, and my take on the issue as a whole. Be warned, this is an extremely lengthy post, as I�m trying to balance the desire to be technically precise (always a strong drive with me, as some may have noticed) with the desire to make my points understandable to people without substantial background in biology and chemistry.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have significant objections to both the substance of the claims made by Intelligent Design proponents, as well as the classification of this movement as either science or a theory. I�ll explain why later, but I figure it�s best to be up front with my biases. When I heard about the talk, I decided to read Behe�s book over the weekend, and later read some of the scientific criticisms and responses to his book.
There are several reasons why I don�t feel ID qualifies as either a theory or a science. I feel that word meanings are very important, so I need to define some words here. First off, as a friend and I explained to someone sitting next to us at the first talk, science is a systematic attempt to make positive, falsifiable predictions about future events based upon a synthesis of past and present knowledge gained by empirical testing of previous predictions. Science seeks to explain how natural forces can account for observations. It does not say that those natural forces are the only ones which exist, but merely that they’re sufficient. Science is NOT an attempt to explain everything in every area of thought and/or life. The criticism that science classes don’t teach about anything beyond natural forces is true, but it’s only as valid as the criticism that science classes don’t teach modern dance. There are other fields of study out there. Secondly, the word theory has a different meaning in science than it does in daily usage. Theories in science are explanations of a large body of data collected from a variety of sources under a unifying idea which is supported by a solid framework of predictions and tests carried out.
There�s been a great deal of debate about whether evolution is a theory or a fact. I�ve written about this before, but the simplest explanation is that it�s both. When someone refers to evolution as a fact, what they mean is that populations change over time. Biologists define evolution as a change in a measureable trait (either morphological�relating to the structure of the body�or genetic, such as a change in the relative frequencies of alternative copies of a gene) from one generation to another. This is the fact which really can�t be disputed, given that there are species around now that didn�t used to be, there are others which used to be here which aren�t, and we can see a steady change in a number of features over geological time scales. The theory of evolution by natural selection with common descent is the idea that gradual changes could have accumulated to cause the differentiation of organisms into the great variety of life we can see today. Note the word �could� there�science doesn�t say that supernatural intervention never occurred, but evolutionary theory posits that it isn�t necessary to explain the present.
Intelligent Design is basically a critique of some aspects of evolutionary theory. Its central concept is that there are systems which are irreducibly complex (a phrase coined by Behe), which is to say that they are made up of multiple interacting parts and the removal of any one of these parts would cause the system to stop functioning�not function to a lesser extent, but stop altogether. The conceptual analogy most often used within the movement is that of a mousetrap. The type of mousetrap in question is a spring-loaded one, and is comprised of 5 essential parts: a platform, a spring, a hammer, a holding bar, and a catch. When the mouse takes the bait, it causes the catch to release the holding bar, which allows the tension in the spring to snap the hammer onto the platform, either immobilizing the mouse (by catching an appendage), or killing it outright. If any one of these parts is removed, the mousetrap fails to catch or kill the mouse. Therefore, ID proponents say that such systems are a challenge for Darwinian evolution. Some take the position that irreducibly complex structures are inherently unable to evolve, but in his book, Behe takes the more moderate position that they are unlikely to arise because it�s difficult to see how such systems could be put together and improved upon by slight modifications over time.
The Darwinian response to this can be boiled down to two basic themes: 1) the system that is said to be irreducibly complex actually isn�t irreducibly complex, or 2) the pieces were already there, just not working together for this purpose beforehand. Argument 1 takes longer to explain, so I�ll address argument 2 first. The concept here is something known in the field as exaptation�something which used to be used for one function now serves another. Feathers are proposed to be an exaptation, under the idea that their original purpose was for insulation, but they�ve been coopted for use in flight. Closer to my own area of research is the idea that the original purpose of mitochondria was to detoxify oxygen�oxygen is actually toxic to many organisms�but that the processing of oxygen was later used as a way to generate energy for the cell. Exaptation at the molecular level would be seen in proteins that used to be used for one thing now being used for something else. There are numerous technical examples of this�e-mail me if you�d like me to point you to a few of them.
The other argument is that something which is seen as irreducibly complex really isn�t. Many of the claims of irreducible complexity are based upon the idea that removing any one component in the present destroys the system. The problem with this is that evolution is a process. The simplest analogy I have to offer is the game of Jenga. For those unfamiliar with it, Jenga is a game played with a set of wooden rectangular prisms, each with a width equal to 1/3 its length. A tower is made out of these blocks, aligned such that alternating layers switch the orientation�the length runs north-south on one layer, then east-west on the next, and so on. Each turn, the player must remove one of the blocks from a layer other than the topmost and place it to either start a new layer on top of the tower, or continue such a layer if one is already being formed. The goal is to not knock over the tower. Over the course of the game, the forces traveling through the tower change; previously required pieces are suddenly able to be removed, and ones which were unimportant become essential as holes develop around them. At any given time point in the game, the existing pieces can be categorized as either essential or removable, but which pieces are in which list can change over time�some pieces can become permanently required (such as the center block on a layer which has had both of the side blocks removed), but others can be freed up as the balance changes. In an analogous way, the essentiality of proteins can change over time, either because the proteins it interacts with change, or because the environment changes. It�s therefore very difficult to say that a given biochemical network could not have evolved, as you have to deal with the possibility that there used to be another gene involved which produced some other protein which would allow ancestral versions of the current proteins to be removed and yet have the system retain some function.
Having set the stage of the debate, I can now move on to what Behe actually said during his talks.
The first of the two talks he gave was in the afternoon. Titled �The Empire Strikes Back: My Rejoinders to the Scientific, Theological, and Social Criticisms of Intelligent Design,� it was a much smaller audience than the evening�s lecture titled �The Argument for Intelligent Design in Biology��60 or so people at the former, compared to roughly 400 at the latter. The afternoon talk was during the ecology and evolution group�s weekly departmental seminar, so it wasn�t terribly well attended by the field most critical of ID, but there were about 7 of us from the biological disciplines present. This turned out not to be terribly important, as Dr. Behe chose to save the scientific criticisms for the evening session. Instead, much more time was spent on conceptual criticisms and social criticisms. In terms of conceptual criticisms, he addressed at length the scheme proposed by Dr. John McDonald of how Behe�s irreducibly complex mousetrap could have one piece removed at a time and still function. Behe�s counters are that 1) John McDonald is a smart man, and his mousetraps are therefore all intelligently designed; 2) that several components not listed in this mousetrap are essential, such as the staples to hold the spring to the platform, and 3) that more than one thing changes at a time. In the social criticism section, he spent an impressively long amount of time discussing a three day installment of the comic strip Funky Winkerbean mocking ID as an example of how people who express skepticism in regards to Darwinian evolution are mocked�for instance, when the science teacher is told that ID is mandated by the state, he counters with the idea that science fiction is properly the realm of the English teacher (though phrased in a more humorous fashion, of course). This was followed by a article for a British magazine, with a reference I must admit that I didn�t write down, which dealt with the issue much more seriously. He also quoted several criticisms of him that argued essentially that his own lack of imagination for how something could come to be in a multitude of small steps was not an indictment against it happening, but rather against his powers of imagination. The basic response to this was that too much imagination is a bad thing.
I have to say that I found the afternoon talk less than enthralling. Behe was obviously rushed; he came in out of breath and started a bit late, explained that he had thought he was going to be picked up at his room but wasn�t so he hurried over as fast as he could (and, admittedly, this is a LARGE campus), and a big part of why I went to the afternoon session was to hear his response to the scientific criticism. He lacked much of the polish that his writings and his evening talked displayed. And while he kept saying he was short on time, he really belabored things like the mousetrap and comic strip. But what he did say has some interesting implications.
The mousetrap analogy is just that�an analogy. Dr. McDonald even states at the top of the page giving his response to the analogy:
�It is not my purpose here to point out all of the philosophical flaws in Behe’s argument; this has been done thoroughly in many of the resources collected on John Catalano’s excellent web page �Behe�s Empty Box� (Note: I�ve fixed the link�McDonald�s is out of date) Instead, I wish to point out that the mousetrap that Behe uses as an analogy CAN be reduced in complexity and still function as a mousetrap. The mousetrap illustrates one of the fundamental flaws in the intelligent design argument: the fact that one person can’t imagine something doesn’t mean it is impossible, it may just mean that the person has a limited imagination. Behe’s evidence that biochemical pathways are intelligently designed is that Behe can’t imagine how they could function without all of their parts, but given how easy it is to reduce the complexity of a mousetrap, I’m not convinced. (Of course, the reduced-complexity mousetraps shown below are intended to point out the logical flaw in the intelligent design argument; they’re not intended as an analogy of how evolution works.�
Further, while the staples are essential, they�re also essential in Behe�s formulation of the mousetrap. So, for that matter, is the density of the atmosphere. Behe initially claimed that there were 5 parts to be arranged and modified�and McDonald does that. To me, staples seem like a way of arranging things. I could be wrong on this, I suppose, but I don�t see why I am.
Behe has always been careful in his writings to maintain that ID doesn�t say anything about the identity of the designer�in fact, in his book he is very explicit that a noncellular form of life could have designed the first cell, or that perhaps humans will design it and send it back into the past with a time machine at some point in the future�yet there were a number of overtly religious comments in his speech. It is my impression that these were present for what he presumed would be their humor value to the audience, but when stating about one of his critics �Atkins reviewed my book for a website called www.infidels.org, which shows you the company he keeps,� I think he displays rather worse humor than from more benign comments such as �Darwinian evolution cannot invoke angels, because the angels are on our side. That�s a joke�
Two of his statements in response to questions really caught my attention. The first was �I�m not convinced that ID is poorly received by the vast majority of scientists.� Well, that�s his business, but I have to say that I am. I think he may be referring to an often cited Gallup poll in which only 55% of scientists selected the choice �Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process� over the alternatives of �Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man’s creation� (40%) and �God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years� (5%). As has been pointed out, though, this group of scientists most likely includes chemical engineers, computer scientists, and the like�people whose training and job have very little to do with the life sciences. As such, they�re probably not the scientists most relevant to the question. The second statement was �If it [evolution] only had scientific implications, no one would care.� Well, I�ll admit fewer people would care, but I�m betting at least some of us still would, much as there are people who care about the degree to which various composers of the Baroque period influenced each other.
The evening talk occurred with much more fanfare. Several people had made posters reminiscent of picket signs decrying ID. Behe was polished and his jokes were far better prepared. In this talk, he laid out his views of irreducible complexity, how he sees evidence of design in virtually every aspect of biology, and how he doesn�t feel that Darwinian evolution can explain the appearance of design. He also responded to some scientific criticisms, primarily a series of them which kept citing the same passage with a typo in it, and which showed misunderstand of a paper they refer to as showing an example of how blood clotting can work with several genes missing�the actual paper does not demonstrate this finding. The person who originally misread the paper in question is an expert in vertebrate blood clotting, and his lab has produced a number of explanations of how the blood clotting mechanism arose in vertebrate�a good overview can be found here, in an explanation by Ken Miller.
Both talks involved time for a limited number of questions. I didn�t get a chance to ask mine over the microphone, but I did get to ask him in person. I wanted to know what positive predictions ID makes that aren�t made by standard evolutionary thought. A negative prediction comes to mind easily�that an irreducibly complex biochemical system cannot evolve without intelligent intervention no matter what conditions and time are allowed�but negative results are hard to use as the basis for science. One can always say that the conditions weren�t right, or that not enough time was allowed, or whatnot. His response was that ID doesn�t make any positive predictions, but predictive ability is not a requirement of science. This is really where Behe and I part company. For this reason above others, but for all of the ones listed above, I feel that ID is a philosophy. I disagree with parts of it, but I do with virtually all philosophies. It really irks me, though, when a philosophy claims to be a science. Science does not have the answers for everything, and those who confuse philosophy and science seem to overestimate the role of science and downplay that of philosophy, ethics, and other fields. Despite what popularizers like Richard Dawkins contend, views of atheism, agnosticism, or deism are not the only possibilities for an individual informed in regard to evolution.
Anyway, I�ve babbled for long enough. I have no idea whether anyone actually found this interesting enough to read all of it, but it seemed worth the effort of writing.
May 4th, 2005 at 3:09:03 am
Well, I’m still here. But then, I’ve suffered from some of your “irreducibly complex” emails, too, so the length of this post wasn’t very intimidating. ;-)
I applaud you for attending with an open (if biased, but who isn’t?) mind.
“First off, as a friend and I explained to someone sitting next to us at the first talk, science is a systematic attempt to make positive, falsifiable predictions about future events based upon a synthesis of past and present knowledge gained by empirical testing of previous predictions. Science seeks to explain how natural forces can account for observations. It does not say that those natural forces are the only ones which exist, but merely that they’re sufficient. Science is NOT an attempt to explain everything in every area of thought and/or life.”
Elsewhere you have said,
” Fundamentally, IÃÂm a cheerful agnostic, in the classical sense, rather than the current misperception. ItÃÂs not that I canÃÂt decide, itÃÂs that I think what lies beyond death is both unknown and fundamentally unknowable, except perhaps after death. Then again, death may be the end of all consciousness, and the void beyond would remain fundamentally unknowable as all thought would cease at the moment of potential discovery anyway. In any event, since none of us will be able to gain definitive knowledge while weÃÂre alive, it seems pointless to me to devote as much time to contemplation of the afterlife as many people do. Life is for the living, and IÃÂd rather get on with the living part….
“I do lean towards atheism as being the most likely case of the workings of the universe. OccamÃÂs razor, and all that. I know that a lot of people actually think that OccamÃÂs razor would support the idea of God, in that itÃÂs sort of simple to use God as an explanation of anything and everything, but thatÃÂs really not how things work. The required physical constants required for life as we know it fall within a fairly narrow range, to be sure, but the physical constants are known to be in that range, and since life as we know it exists, they have to. If life existed in a different form than we know it, there would be a different range of needed physical constants.”
I find it odd that, in this post here, you acknowledge that science is limited to the physical realm and not an explanation for everything, and yet in your email to me, you essentially rule out all knowledge that is not empirically discoverable. Which is it? See, to answer this question, you fall straight into the rabbit hole of epistemology and philosophy. If it irks you “when a philosophy claims to be a science”, why does it not equally bother you that you allow your scientific focus to stake its claim as your personal philosophy (hence why I criticize your extreme empiricism)? It seems you are only comfortable in applying your logic and reasoning skills to that which is manipulatible and measurable, and shy away from the esoteric discussions that philosophy and religion entail. I find that tragic because, as you so readily admit in your post here, it’s not an either/or proposition: “Science does not have the answers for everything, and those who confuse philosophy and science seem to overestimate the role of science and downplay that of philosophy, ethics, and other fields…. [V]iews of atheism, agnosticism, or deism are not the only possibilities for an individual informed in regard to evolution.”
May 4th, 2005 at 3:38:04 am
Basically, Andrew, it’s that I follow many of the tenets of the philosophy of empiricism. Science is based almost entirely on the foundations of empiricism, and a large part of the reason why I value the methodology of science is that I agree with assertion that it’s the best way to be sure of something. I apply my reasoning almost entirely to the measureable and the manipulable because I like being able to prove that I’m right and that what I think is the best explanation available for a given phenomenon. Esoteric discussions of untestable things, as you point out, are inherently fuzzy, and I find it rather frustrating to devote a lot of time and effort and yet be unable to be sure that a given supposition rationally explains a greater percentage of what I can currently observe than do its alternatives.
May 4th, 2005 at 6:47:02 am
Brilliant, Mike.
Not necessarily altogether Correct ~ but still, Brilliant. :) Nobody else on This Here Blog can touch you ~ which isn’t surprising, considering that the Rest of us aren’t even on the same ‘brane, let alone the same Plane.
Thanks, Per-Fesser. :)
May 4th, 2005 at 8:09:03 am
Well, I’m still here. But then, I’ve suffered from some of your “irreducibly complex” emails, too, so the length of this post wasn’t very intimidating. ;-)
I applaud you for attending with an open (if biased, but who isn’t?) mind.
<i>”First off, as a friend and I explained to someone sitting next to us at the first talk, science is a systematic attempt to make positive, falsifiable predictions about future events based upon a synthesis of past and present knowledge gained by empirical testing of previous predictions. Science seeks to explain how natural forces can account for observations. It does not say that those natural forces are the only ones which exist, but merely that they’re sufficient. Science is NOT an attempt to explain everything in every area of thought and/or life.”</i>
Elsewhere you have said,
<i>” Fundamentally, IÃÂm a cheerful agnostic, in the classical sense, rather than the current misperception. ItÃÂs not that I canÃÂt decide, itÃÂs that I think what lies beyond death is both unknown and fundamentally unknowable, except perhaps after death. Then again, death may be the end of all consciousness, and the void beyond would remain fundamentally unknowable as all thought would cease at the moment of potential discovery anyway. In any event, since none of us will be able to gain definitive knowledge while weÃÂre alive, it seems pointless to me to devote as much time to contemplation of the afterlife as many people do. Life is for the living, and IÃÂd rather get on with the living part….
“I do lean towards atheism as being the most likely case of the workings of the universe. OccamÃÂs razor, and all that. I know that a lot of people actually think that OccamÃÂs razor would support the idea of God, in that itÃÂs sort of simple to use God as an explanation of anything and everything, but thatÃÂs really not how things work. The required physical constants required for life as we know it fall within a fairly narrow range, to be sure, but the physical constants are known to be in that range, and since life as we know it exists, they have to. If life existed in a different form than we know it, there would be a different range of needed physical constants.”</i>
I find it odd that, in this post here, you acknowledge that science is limited to the physical realm and not an explanation for everything, and yet in your email to me, you essentially rule out all knowledge that is not empirically discoverable. Which is it? See, to answer this question, you fall straight into the rabbit hole of epistemology and philosophy. If it irks you “when a philosophy claims to be a science”, why does it not equally bother you that you allow your scientific focus to stake its claim as your personal philosophy (hence why I criticize your extreme empiricism)? It seems you are only comfortable in applying your logic and reasoning skills to that which is manipulatible and measurable, and shy away from the esoteric discussions that philosophy and religion entail. I find that tragic because, as you so readily admit in your post here, it’s not an either/or proposition: “Science does not have the answers for everything, and those who confuse philosophy and science seem to overestimate the role of science and downplay that of philosophy, ethics, and other fields…. [V]iews of atheism, agnosticism, or deism are not the only possibilities for an individual informed in regard to evolution.”
May 4th, 2005 at 8:38:04 am
Basically, Andrew, it’s that I follow many of the tenets of the philosophy of empiricism. Science is based almost entirely on the foundations of empiricism, and a large part of the reason why I value the methodology of science is that I agree with assertion that it’s the best way to be sure of something. I apply my reasoning almost entirely to the measureable and the manipulable because I like being able to prove that I’m right and that what I think is the best explanation available for a given phenomenon. Esoteric discussions of untestable things, as you point out, are inherently fuzzy, and I find it rather frustrating to devote a lot of time and effort and yet be unable to be sure that a given supposition rationally explains a greater percentage of what I can currently observe than do its alternatives.
May 4th, 2005 at 10:21:22 am
This Behe guy is friggin brilliant! Think about it. He’s so megalomaniacal that he’s determined that because he can’t understand the whole tamale, it must be because there’s some overarching genius of life that dictates how everything has come to be. I’m no scientist and that sounds like something that I would say. lol!
In all seriousness though, when he talks about his mouse trap idea, does he ever discuss where the parts came from? I mean, it’s all well and good to say that a car can’t run until it’s put together by someone, but the pieces of the car still have to come from somewhere. I know he’s talking about the design here (aka, the guy who designed/put together the car is central), but I think you can’t ignore the pieces of the puzzle.
I suppose if you look at the human body as a lump of billions of proteins and such and ask, how the hell did these proteins form a sentient being—that’s a good question. But I’m not convinced that the answer is that some miraculous intelligence came from nowhere and played with a bio mush until it made a person. I mean, where did the first intelligence come from then?
It seems to me that on the most basic levels, life is a whole lot more about the attraction of particles to one another than it is about overarching order. There’s just far too much chaos out there. And if some intelligence organized higher life in some way, they didn’t do a very good job now, did they? I mean, where’s the intelligence in cancer? Or do we attribute cancer to some mutation that isn’t in the original “perfect” schematic?
To me, there’s just too much that ID cannot explain.
I’m not sure evolution has all the answers either.
I think there’s a valid question to be asked about why people have become so dominant…I would think that no other species has been so prosperous in the past. (I know there a billions of bugs and stuff, but you know what I mean!)
It seems to me that Behe is inherently drawn to Linnaeus’ (sp!) classification error; why do we want to believe so desperately that humans are not really animals? Or that humans are the only beings capable of communication and feeling?
An ID? hmmm. How does ID explain change over time (which is such a history buzz phrase too)? If ID created a masterpiece, then why would that masterpiece change? And why are those tropical male iguanas so friggin huge while the gals aren’t so big? And why do peacocks have big ass tails?
Nah. ID doesn’t explain “it” well enough for me.
I’m mildly comfortable with the concept that some entity created everything. After all, there is a comfortable similarity in most life. But it seems to me that it is difficult to argue that whatever it was that set life in motion has been interfering with tiny intelligent particles ever since.
I’m sure I’ve now slaughtered all scientific theory and proven my general ignorance of evolutionary theory, but at least I’m entertained. :)
nice post, mike!
May 4th, 2005 at 11:13:26 am
Well done! Perhaps my wife (once a microbiologist for Sloan-Kettering, now a biology teacher) will have something more to add, but she won’t be able to weigh in until this evening. She’ll probably be interested to read this in any case.
A couple years ago I sat in on a similar set of talks by Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli scientist (actually has a PhD in Physics from MIT, no less) who attempts a slightly more sophisticated tack. I won’t outline it here — only 3000 characters allowed with HaloScan, right? — but it was intriguing enough that I bought his two (rather slim) books. He attempted to use relativity to explain the idea that the Earth was created in six days, and also used (flawed) probability to suggest that it’s mathematically implausible for evolution to explain the number of different species created by the number of proteins expressed by our genetic code. There were some obvious and quickly identifiable flaws in his work. It’s been a few years, so maybe I’ll glance at it again just for kicks.
I’m not advocating his position at all, and in fact I probably perfectly parallel your (Mike’s) track on this. It’s food for thought, nonetheless.
May 4th, 2005 at 11:47:02 am
Brilliant, Mike.
Not <i>necessarily</i> altogether Correct ~ but still, Brilliant. :) Nobody else on This Here Blog can touch you ~ which isn’t surprising, considering that the Rest of us aren’t even on the same <i>’brane</i>, let alone the same Plane.
Thanks, Per-Fesser. :)
May 4th, 2005 at 12:17:53 pm
Becky, ID proponents don’t question micro-evolution, which is what you see with Darwin’s finches and such. Also, while ID proponents believe life evidences intelligent design, that doesn’t mean that entropy and other scientific principles are out the window. Indeed, if life was *perfectly* designed (per your conception), nothing would ever die, no? In fact, ID and creation science people believe entropy favors their theory over evolution, since things should naturally break down over time and become corrupted/imperfect, not more complex and reliable.
May 4th, 2005 at 12:54:53 pm
Andrew has it basically right. Behe himself in his book says that he finds the argument of a universal common descent from a single ancestral cell fairly convincing, but that it’s the origin of biochemical systems in this cell that he doesn’t think Darwinian processes could explain. He specifically addresses the question of apparently unintelligent design and argues–I swear that I’m not making this up–that since we haven’t asked the designer about the reasons for the apparent inefficiencies, we can’t be sure that they aren’t there for other reasons, such as artistic expression. And while in the mousetrap analogy he concedes that the pieces could come from other things–a spring from a clock, a popsicle stick for the base, etc, he maintains that there would be no selectable functionality for a less than complete mousetrap. In a paraphrase of one of his comments in the evening section, it’s not as if we can envision that, say, putting a hook on the platform would make an inefficient mousetrap, where the mouse trips over the platform and happens to impale itself on the hook.
Most of the ID people don’t question microevolution. This is good for them, because those who do are justly laughed at. I use microevolution as a tool to construct my bacterial strains as a matter of course, not even as an experiment itself. Since I compete bacteria with each other to measure the fitness effects of different things in different environments, I need some way to tell my strains apart. Most frequently, I use whether or not the E. coli in question can metabolize a certain sugar, as there’s a cheap dye that we incorporate into our plates that makes those who can use whatever sugar’s in the plate turn one color (pink), while those who can’t use it turn another (dark red). The particular sugar I generally use (maltose) is brought into the cell by a protein (lamB) which a bacterial virus (bacteriophage lambda) uses to get in as well–if any of you are crazy enough to want to know how the chemistry of this or the dye works, let me know. :) So, I frequently take a strain that can use the sugar and is sensitive to the virus, grow up a lot of cells of that type, introduce the virus for a little while, and then plate out the culture. Those cells which grow are almost always resistant to the virus because of mutations in the uptake gene, which render them unable to use the sugar. The population has now changed in both genotype (its genetic structure) and phenotype (its directly observable traits) between one generation (before the virus was introduced) and another (after I’ve grown up the survivors). Voila–evolution has occured. It’s pretty hard to argue that that doesn’t occur.
The one place Andrew goes wrong here–as opposed to the information theorists who support ID, who go wrong in a very different way–is mistakenly accepting the term creation science. Sorry, but it’s not a science. I think I explained why not in detail above. :)
May 4th, 2005 at 1:33:50 pm
Mike, I strongly considered putting quotation marks around creation science, if that assuages you at all. ;-)
May 4th, 2005 at 3:21:22 pm
This Behe guy is friggin brilliant! Think about it. He’s so megalomaniacal that he’s determined that because he can’t understand the whole tamale, it must be because there’s some overarching genius of life that dictates how everything has come to be. I’m no scientist and that sounds like something that I would say. lol!
In all seriousness though, when he talks about his mouse trap idea, does he ever discuss where the parts came from? I mean, it’s all well and good to say that a car can’t run until it’s put together by someone, but the pieces of the car still have to come from somewhere. I know he’s talking about the design here (aka, the guy who designed/put together the car is central), but I think you can’t ignore the pieces of the puzzle.
I suppose if you look at the human body as a lump of billions of proteins and such and ask, how the hell did these proteins form a sentient being—that’s a good question. But I’m not convinced that the answer is that some miraculous intelligence came from nowhere and played with a bio mush until it made a person. I mean, where did the first intelligence come from then?
It seems to me that on the most basic levels, life is a whole lot more about the attraction of particles to one another than it is about overarching order. There’s just far too much chaos out there. And if some intelligence organized higher life in some way, they didn’t do a very good job now, did they? I mean, where’s the intelligence in cancer? Or do we attribute cancer to some mutation that isn’t in the original “perfect” schematic?
To me, there’s just too much that ID cannot explain.
I’m not sure evolution has all the answers either.
I think there’s a valid question to be asked about why people have become so dominant…I would think that no other species has been so prosperous in the past. (I know there a billions of bugs and stuff, but you know what I mean!)
It seems to me that Behe is inherently drawn to Linnaeus’ (sp!) classification error; why do we want to believe so desperately that humans are not really animals? Or that humans are the only beings capable of communication and feeling?
An ID? hmmm. How does ID explain change over time (which is such a history buzz phrase too)? If ID created a masterpiece, then why would that masterpiece change? And why are those tropical male iguanas so friggin huge while the gals aren’t so big? And why do peacocks have big ass tails?
Nah. ID doesn’t explain “it” well enough for me.
I’m mildly comfortable with the concept that some entity created everything. After all, there is a comfortable similarity in most life. But it seems to me that it is difficult to argue that whatever it was that set life in motion has been interfering with tiny intelligent particles ever since.
I’m sure I’ve now slaughtered all scientific theory and proven my general ignorance of evolutionary theory, but at least I’m entertained. :)
nice post, mike!
May 4th, 2005 at 4:13:26 pm
Well done! Perhaps my wife (once a microbiologist for Sloan-Kettering, now a biology teacher) will have something more to add, but she won’t be able to weigh in until this evening. She’ll probably be interested to read this in any case.
A couple years ago I sat in on a similar set of talks by Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli scientist (actually has a PhD in Physics from MIT, no less) who attempts a slightly more sophisticated tack. I won’t outline it here — only 3000 characters allowed with HaloScan, right? — but it was intriguing enough that I bought his two (rather slim) books. He attempted to use relativity to explain the idea that the Earth was created in six days, and also used (flawed) probability to suggest that it’s mathematically implausible for evolution to explain the number of different species created by the number of proteins expressed by our genetic code. There were some obvious and quickly identifiable flaws in his work. It’s been a few years, so maybe I’ll glance at it again just for kicks.
I’m not advocating his position at all, and in fact I probably perfectly parallel your (Mike’s) track on this. It’s food for thought, nonetheless.
May 4th, 2005 at 5:17:53 pm
Becky, ID proponents don’t question micro-evolution, which is what you see with Darwin’s finches and such. Also, while ID proponents believe life evidences intelligent design, that doesn’t mean that entropy and other scientific principles are out the window. Indeed, if life was *perfectly* designed (per your conception), nothing would ever die, no? In fact, ID and creation science people believe entropy favors <i>their</i> theory over evolution, since things should naturally break down over time and become corrupted/imperfect, not more complex and reliable.
May 4th, 2005 at 5:54:53 pm
Andrew has it basically right. Behe himself in his book says that he finds the argument of a universal common descent from a single ancestral cell fairly convincing, but that it’s the origin of biochemical systems in this cell that he doesn’t think Darwinian processes could explain. He specifically addresses the question of apparently unintelligent design and argues–I swear that I’m not making this up–that since we haven’t asked the designer about the reasons for the apparent inefficiencies, we can’t be sure that they aren’t there for other reasons, such as artistic expression. And while in the mousetrap analogy he concedes that the pieces could come from other things–a spring from a clock, a popsicle stick for the base, etc, he maintains that there would be no selectable functionality for a less than complete mousetrap. In a paraphrase of one of his comments in the evening section, it’s not as if we can envision that, say, putting a hook on the platform would make an inefficient mousetrap, where the mouse trips over the platform and happens to impale itself on the hook.
Most of the ID people don’t question microevolution. This is good for them, because those who do are justly laughed at. I use microevolution as a tool to construct my bacterial strains as a matter of course, not even as an experiment itself. Since I compete bacteria with each other to measure the fitness effects of different things in different environments, I need some way to tell my strains apart. Most frequently, I use whether or not the E. coli in question can metabolize a certain sugar, as there’s a cheap dye that we incorporate into our plates that makes those who can use whatever sugar’s in the plate turn one color (pink), while those who can’t use it turn another (dark red). The particular sugar I generally use (maltose) is brought into the cell by a protein (lamB) which a bacterial virus (bacteriophage lambda) uses to get in as well–if any of you are crazy enough to want to know how the chemistry of this or the dye works, let me know. :) So, I frequently take a strain that can use the sugar and is sensitive to the virus, grow up a lot of cells of that type, introduce the virus for a little while, and then plate out the culture. Those cells which grow are almost always resistant to the virus because of mutations in the uptake gene, which render them unable to use the sugar. The population has now changed in both genotype (its genetic structure) and phenotype (its directly observable traits) between one generation (before the virus was introduced) and another (after I’ve grown up the survivors). Voila–evolution has occured. It’s pretty hard to argue that that doesn’t occur.
The one place Andrew goes wrong here–as opposed to the information theorists who support ID, who go wrong in a very different way–is mistakenly accepting the term creation science. Sorry, but it’s not a science. I think I explained why not in detail above. :)
May 4th, 2005 at 6:33:50 pm
Mike, I strongly considered putting quotation marks around creation science, if that assuages you at all. ;-)
May 5th, 2005 at 4:01:40 am
As a graduate student in biology who also went to the Behe speech, I feel that Mike’s post was far too polite. None of Behe’s arguments or examples were convincing. Behe also seemed to struggle with questions regarding the logical implications of having an intelligent designer or why intelligent design should be considered a science. Seriously, it was all crap as Mike I discussed after the talk. I congratulate Behe for being able to sell books and make money off of this nonsense.
May 5th, 2005 at 9:01:40 am
As a graduate student in biology who also went to the Behe speech, I feel that Mike’s post was far too polite. None of Behe’s arguments or examples were convincing. Behe also seemed to struggle with questions regarding the logical implications of having an intelligent designer or why intelligent design should be considered a science. Seriously, it was all crap as Mike I discussed after the talk. I congratulate Behe for being able to sell books and make money off of this nonsense.
May 5th, 2005 at 12:27:51 pm
Thanks for the level-headed post, Mike. I’ve been frustrated at the growing support of ID in the last couple of years…
[Penn. students were taught ID this year; Kansas is–yet again–putting evolution on trial.]
As I mentioned on my own site, ID is very possibly The Way in which everything was done, but it’s IMPOSSIBLE to base scientific research on such an assumption.
It’s clearly not science. And, whether Behe intended or not, nonscientists are using ID as a roundabout way to teach creationism in public schools. ID serves as a convenient end run into the gray areas of church-state separation.
ID adds nothing to the scientific field, other than an awkward hubris check: that science may not ever be able to explain everything. [Which seems about as necessary as forcing the New England Patriots to admit they probably couldn’t win the Stanley Cup…]
I don’t have a problem with ID as philosophy (what it actually is), and if it helps folks reconcile their religious beliefs with well-substantiated scientific theory I say “great!” But, frankly, it does absolutely nothing for those working at a lab bench every day…Its emerging cult-like following my have political repercussions as they continue to meddle with public school science programs and the like.
May 5th, 2005 at 12:44:57 pm
It sounds to me like the role of ID and science classes is mired in the same tough ambiguity of the abortion topic and when life really begins, or when the “clump of cells” is finally a human being. Would it be wrong to set aside time in a classroom to discuss scientific theories for origins? If we can talk about the Big Bang, and if scientists can be proponents of theories like aliens dropping primordial goo on Earth, why couldn’t the ID theory also be mentioned? And then the teacher could conclude by saying that theories of origins are not a basis for scientific application, they are just speculation.
May 5th, 2005 at 2:15:08 pm
The problem with that, Andrew, is that the Big Bang truly is a theory. So is evolution. Both make testable predictions about data not yet gathered but which can be. ID and panspermia are merely hypotheses, not theories, and neither is terribly scientific–ID is purely philosophy, and panspermia merely moves the debate elsewhere as the cellular life that it posits landing on Earth had to have come from somewhere. Panspermia deserves mention in passing when discussing the origin of life material in such things as the Miller Urey experiments, as it says that perhaps life arose under different conditions than those found on the early Earth and thus other parameters need to be tested, but that’s about the level of its contribution to the state of the science these days. Panspermia will make positive falsifiable predictions if/when we ever begin truly exploring the cosmos (most likely with space probes, as much as the imagery of Star Trek tugs at the heartstrings). I can’t see what positive falsifiable predictions ID will ever make, and that’s again a huge part of my basis for classifying it as not science.
May 5th, 2005 at 2:38:35 pm
My point is though that it is still an origins question that interfaces with scientific questions, and just as a science class would discuss the issue of when human life begins when teaching the science behind conception and pregnancy, so too I could see room to discuss ID and other hypotheses. Especially in a high school setting or earlier, science classes are definitely going to bring in discussions of ethics, empirical philosophy, and other non-pure science topics. A discussion on origin hypotheses and their scientific/non-scientific bases is not unreasonable.
May 5th, 2005 at 3:23:25 pm
I’m not opposed to a 10-minute period given on the first day of high school bio 101 on the various ideas that exist. These are legitimate topics that should be addressed–the vast majority of 14-15 year-old biology students (I imagine) have little or no exposure to the dearth of information supporting evolutionary theory. [They may have, however, been attending church since infancy.]
Saying “Christians believe the origin of Earth, animals and Man is explained in the Biblical Genesis story” isn’t, IMHO, a bad idea. In fact, ID may serve as an excellent segue from Genesis to evolutionary theory because it exists as a sort of mish-mash of the two.
[Personally, however, I do think that mention of religious creation stories should be limited to “mentions” as much as possible–and all major religions should be included. Further discussion should only include the relation that these stories have to evolutionary biology, contradictory or supportive.]
The only major sticking point is the sheer difficulty of maintaining instructive, open-minded class time with such a potentially volatile topic. It is eminently difficult to teach high schoolers without involving irate parents, an ill-informed populace, and arrogant scientific and religious figures.
Good luck with that, Mr. Firstyear Scienceteacherdude!
May 5th, 2005 at 3:59:05 pm
Hmm. Maybe it’s a difference of starting presumptions, Andrew. To my mode of thought, and from my personal experiences, intro Bio classes *don’t* discuss when human life begins in pregnancy. The biology of human reproduction relates to gamete formation, where fertilization takes place and when in the cycle it does, stages of growth with the differences between zygote, blastula, gastrula, embryo, fetus, etc. In fact, the only “when does life begin” question I remember coming up in a Bio class, even in hgih school, was answered as “3.6-3.8 billion years ago, according to our best dating of the fossil evidence of prokaryotes”. I’ve always had science classes which presented just the scientific subject, the applications of that knowledge to engineering/medicine, and (in some) the history of the science, including what advances were made when by whom and what ideas they overturned. And, in fact, that’s how I think it should be. Science tells you what can be done and how, not what should be done and why.
May 5th, 2005 at 4:10:05 pm
All of my science classes, to my memory, included times when we discussed the ethical ramifications of various hot-button issues, whether it be nuclear use for energy and/or weapons in physics, or bioethics and evolution in biology. They by no means were the primary focus of our studies; we did have AP tests to pass, after all. But where else does it make better sense to discuss the various creation stories and theories as proffered by scientists, philosophers, or various religions?
By the way Scientizzle, I’d amend that sentence to say some Christians rely on Genesis as an account for creation. Many Christians and Jews do not see Genesis 1-2 as an attempt to offer a scientific explanation at all.
May 5th, 2005 at 4:46:22 pm
I suppose to make my statement even more correct than your version the sentence could read “Some Christians and Jews–especially the ones that raise a stink against teaching evolution in public schools–believe the origin of Earth, animals and Man is explained in the Biblical Genesis story.”
(this is *mostly* tongue-in-cheek, btw)
I struggle to believe that anyone could view Genesis 1-2 as a “scientific” explanation. An explanation, yes. But there’s nothing scientific about it.
May 5th, 2005 at 5:27:51 pm
Thanks for the level-headed post, Mike. I’ve been frustrated at the growing support of ID in the last couple of years…
[Penn. students were taught ID this year; Kansas is–yet again–<a href=”http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/02/life.evolution.reut/index.html”>putting evolution on trial</a>.]
As I mentioned on my own <a href=”http://www.haloscan.com/comments/scientizzle/111274001294727766/#107793″>site</a>, <i>ID is very possibly The Way in which everything was done, but it’s IMPOSSIBLE to base scientific research on such an assumption.</i>
It’s clearly not science. And, whether Behe intended or not, <i>nonscientists are using ID as a roundabout way to teach creationism in public schools. ID serves as a convenient end run into the gray areas of church-state separation.</i>
ID adds nothing to the scientific field, other than an awkward hubris check: that science may not ever be able to explain everything. [Which seems about as necessary as forcing the New England Patriots to admit they probably couldn’t win the Stanley Cup…]
I don’t have a problem with ID as philosophy (what it actually is), and if it helps folks reconcile their religious beliefs with well-substantiated scientific theory I say “great!” But, frankly, it does absolutely nothing for those working at a lab bench every day…Its emerging cult-like following my have political repercussions as they continue to meddle with public school science programs and the like.
May 5th, 2005 at 5:44:57 pm
It sounds to me like the role of ID and science classes is mired in the same tough ambiguity of the abortion topic and when life really begins, or when the “clump of cells” is finally a human being. Would it be wrong to set aside time in a classroom to discuss scientific theories for origins? If we can talk about the Big Bang, and if scientists can be proponents of theories like aliens dropping primordial goo on Earth, why couldn’t the ID theory also be mentioned? And then the teacher could conclude by saying that theories of origins are not a basis for scientific application, they are just speculation.
May 5th, 2005 at 7:15:08 pm
The problem with that, Andrew, is that the Big Bang truly is a theory. So is evolution. Both make testable predictions about data not yet gathered but which can be. ID and panspermia are merely hypotheses, not theories, and neither is terribly scientific–ID is purely philosophy, and panspermia merely moves the debate elsewhere as the cellular life that it posits landing on Earth had to have come from somewhere. Panspermia deserves mention in passing when discussing the origin of life material in such things as the Miller Urey experiments, as it says that perhaps life arose under different conditions than those found on the early Earth and thus other parameters need to be tested, but that’s about the level of its contribution to the state of the science these days. Panspermia will make positive falsifiable predictions if/when we ever begin truly exploring the cosmos (most likely with space probes, as much as the imagery of Star Trek tugs at the heartstrings). I can’t see what positive falsifiable predictions ID will ever make, and that’s again a huge part of my basis for classifying it as not science.
May 5th, 2005 at 7:38:35 pm
My point is though that it is still an origins question that interfaces with scientific questions, and just as a science class would discuss the issue of when human life begins when teaching the science behind conception and pregnancy, so too I could see room to discuss ID and other hypotheses. Especially in a high school setting or earlier, science classes are definitely going to bring in discussions of ethics, empirical philosophy, and other non-pure science topics. A discussion on origin hypotheses and their scientific/non-scientific bases is not unreasonable.
May 5th, 2005 at 8:23:25 pm
I’m not opposed to a 10-minute period given on the first day of high school bio 101 on the various ideas that exist. These are legitimate topics that should be addressed–the vast majority of 14-15 year-old biology students (I imagine) have little or no exposure to the dearth of information supporting evolutionary theory. [They may have, however, been attending church since infancy.]
Saying “Christians believe the origin of Earth, animals and Man is explained in the Biblical Genesis story” isn’t, IMHO, a bad idea. In fact, ID may serve as an excellent segue from Genesis to evolutionary theory because it exists as a sort of mish-mash of the two.
[Personally, however, I do think that mention of religious creation stories should be limited to “mentions” as much as possible–and all major religions should be included. Further discussion should only include the relation that these stories have to evolutionary biology, contradictory or supportive.]
The only major sticking point is the sheer difficulty of maintaining instructive, open-minded class time with such a potentially volatile topic. It is eminently difficult to teach high schoolers without involving irate parents, an ill-informed populace, and arrogant scientific and religious figures.
Good luck with that, Mr. Firstyear Scienceteacherdude!
May 5th, 2005 at 8:59:05 pm
Hmm. Maybe it’s a difference of starting presumptions, Andrew. To my mode of thought, and from my personal experiences, intro Bio classes *don’t* discuss when human life begins in pregnancy. The biology of human reproduction relates to gamete formation, where fertilization takes place and when in the cycle it does, stages of growth with the differences between zygote, blastula, gastrula, embryo, fetus, etc. In fact, the only “when does life begin” question I remember coming up in a Bio class, even in hgih school, was answered as “3.6-3.8 billion years ago, according to our best dating of the fossil evidence of prokaryotes”. I’ve always had science classes which presented just the scientific subject, the applications of that knowledge to engineering/medicine, and (in some) the history of the science, including what advances were made when by whom and what ideas they overturned. And, in fact, that’s how I think it should be. Science tells you what can be done and how, not what should be done and why.
May 5th, 2005 at 9:10:05 pm
All of my science classes, to my memory, included times when we discussed the ethical ramifications of various hot-button issues, whether it be nuclear use for energy and/or weapons in physics, or bioethics and evolution in biology. They by no means were the primary focus of our studies; we did have AP tests to pass, after all. But where else does it make better sense to discuss the various creation stories and theories as proffered by scientists, philosophers, or various religions?
By the way Scientizzle, I’d amend that sentence to say <i>some</i> Christians rely on Genesis as an account for creation. Many Christians and Jews do not see Genesis 1-2 as an attempt to offer a scientific explanation at all.
May 5th, 2005 at 9:46:22 pm
I suppose to make my statement even <i>more</i> correct than your version the sentence could read “Some Christians and Jews–especially the ones that raise a stink against teaching evolution in public schools–believe the origin of Earth, animals and Man is explained in the Biblical Genesis story.”
(this is *mostly* tongue-in-cheek, btw)
I struggle to believe that <i>anyone</i> could view Genesis 1-2 as a “scientific” explanation. An explanation, yes. But there’s nothing scientific about it.