NYT Op-Ed Filler
"Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing." - H.L. Mencken
The Grey Lady must be desperate for topical op-ed submissions, although even well-written but atopical submissions, the specialty of the American literary system, would be preferable to today’s piece by Michael J. Behe (2005), in which he argues that intelligent design is not only a viable theory of the origin and development of life, but is preferable to Darwinism.
It is true that evolution has not explained everything its proponents would have liked to explain. However, it is important to differentiate between two different gaps in our evolutionary knowledge.
Irreducible Complexity
To Mr. Behe, "[a]n irreducibly complex system 'cannot be produced directly . . . by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.'" (H. Allen Orr (1996/7 & 2002)) A truly irreducibly complex system would be a system that cannot be explained as having arisen, either in whole or an exaption of another structures that could have arisen, through random mutations and which developed to its current functions through natural selection. If any structure could be shown to be irreducibly complex, then it would show modern Darwinism (as a complete explanation of the intergenerational development of living organisms) to be incorrect much as Einstein's theory of relativity has shown the flaws in Newtonian physics.
However, biologists are of the belief that such systems are only apparantly irreducibly complex. Whether through scaffolding ("At each step, a part gets added that improves a structure's function. At some point, however, a substructure might appear that no longer needs the remaining parts. These useless parts could then fall away. The key point is that the substructure we're left with might be irreducibly complex. Remove any part now and all hell breaks loose.") or through incremental indispensibility ("An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become—because of later changes—essential."), it is very likely that irreducibly complex systems have evolved.
Historical Record
The scientific method has a significant limitation when used to explain the actual operation of evolution, which is an account of a historical process and, if the historical record is not available, will not be falsifiable. There are often multiple Darwinian explanations for the devlopment of certain natural structures, and additional hypotheses proposed by other systems, such as LaMarck's system of evolution or intelligent design.
It is easy to either disprove or nullify these alternative systems as methods of prediction - LaMarck's theory fails to explain observed natural selection and experiments with intelligent design will only explain observable natural selection if it is postulated that either: (a) the designer has decided to design what Darwinian evolution would have selected for or (b) the designer has decided, when his work is being studied, to allow Darwinian evolution to run its course.
However, trivilizing any other theory of development under observable conditions will not prove that it cannot explain a past devoid of historical record. The actual development of living organisms will always be subject to doubt, alternative hypotheses will usually not be fasifiable, and normal scientific experimentation is impossible. This, of course, makes Darwinism into a "flavor of the week" exercise, undermines its credibility, and bogs down many more writers in supporting their historical theory (or criticizing others') than in other, more fitting pursuits, such as defending evolution from its critics. Appropriately, this meshes beautifully with America's culture of mass-production and disposable consumerism, so it could be that the very interest in the historical nature of Darwinism is an American creation.
The Designer
Mr. Behe leaves "open" the nature of the designer (and states that intelligence design is not a religious theory), but to make his point valid the Designer itself must not have been the subject of evolution (if it was, then all intelligent design proves is that living organisms can influence evolution - human selective breeding of plants and animals over the last millennia strongly supports that theory).
As difficult as it is to believe that even the most complex cells were designed by God or an alien race, it cannot be ruled out. However, Mr. Behe's "four points" do not bear scrutiny as a criticism of evolution.
Four Points of Intelligent Design
#1: "We can often recognize the effects of design in nature."
We do recognize the effects of design in nature - Mt. Rushmore (referenced by Mr. Behe) and the street grid of midtown Manhattan are at least two examples of the effects of design. However, the folding of proteins and the lattice-structure of a salt crystal also are "effects of design" - organized structures that are not random (and seem "purpose" driven). But Mr. Behe is being disingenuous. What we are discussing here are effects that appear to humans to be designed. Salt crystals do not appear to be designed, because relatively simple inter- and intra-molecule interactions determine exactly how the molecules line up in the crystal. Only the most ardent opponent of science would argue that protein folding is "designed", even though the folding mechanism is currently uncertain.
I have read that algorithms for the folding process are not solvable. As the complexity of the protein strand increases, the time to determine the folding process quickly increases to infinity. (I am not sure if the algorithms are np complete.) The conundrum is how the protein manages, in real world conditions, to fold so quickly. There are theories that quantum computing is used and that, in effect, the protein tries every combination nearly simultaneously, quickly finding the stable structure.
#2: "The physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology."
This is quite clearly setting up the proof by assuming the conclusion. Biology evidences design, evolution does not "design", therefore there must be a designer. If #1 had been more honest, and admitted that we are discussing the appearance of design, then this points has been discussed ad naseum by Richard Dawkins (1986) in his book The Blind Watchmaker. In short, evolution is not purpose-based but, through its nature, creates structures in a way that appear purpose based. An eye was not created because someone wanted an organism to see, but because light sensitive cells have made it more likely that their host would have progenity, and genes for better, more complex combinations of such cells and their supporting mechanisms will have still more progenity.
#3: "We have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence."
Excellent articles criticizing Behe (1996), upon which the recent New York Times op-ed piece was based) reveals just how empty this statement is. Shreeve (1996), Dennett (1997) and Orr (1996/7) argue that the inability for evolution to explain the "foundation of life" is, in the absence of truly irreducible complexity, merely a failure of imagination. More than likely, refinements to evolution will reveal the answers or satisfactory historical arguments will be advanced. They will not be perfect explanations, compared to E=MC^2 or the score of the Superbowl last night (24-21 Patriots over the Eagles), but they will be far better than an explanation from a system that cannot be supported by testable hypotheses unless it is assumed to mimic (in every testable situation) the very system its proponents are attacking.
#4: "In the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life."
Well, I am convinced by the non-design explanation. However, even for those who are not, Mr. Behe's logical argument, as I explain above, falls flat.
Conclusion
I admit that many aspects of the scientific explanation for natural phenomena is unsatisfying. There are many holes in our present understanding of evolution and there will always be gaps in our historical knowledge. However, I wish that I could convey the sheer power of the idea of evolution, the beauty that such a simple system could create such complexity, and the thrill that accompanies the knowledge that existence (of everything) is such a low probability event.
Epilogue
As I read somewhere (perhaps Gregg Easterbrook in The Progress Paradox) modern Western culture is facing a meaning gap. For as long as meaning has been important, it has been handed to us, but we can no longer take such meaning for granted. While I cannot say that I am happier for this, I can say that it is essential for our development as human beings to be able to make our own meaning. We are no longer meaningfully subject to evolution, so maybe the search for meaning is our biggest purpose in life.
I do not expect anyone to enjoy what I am writing here - my methods are crude and my prose banal. Maybe I will get better, but regardless it is an exercise. An exercise in searching for meaning. Perhaps it is also a self-carthartic exercise. It heals the soul to assess the validity and worth of our ideas, regardless of how well rate. I will have to leave it to future posts to determine how to define and measure such qualities.
Behe, Michael J., Darwin's Black Box: The Chemical Challenge to Evolution (1998, Free Press)
Behe, Michael J., "Design for Living" (New York Times, February 7, 2005)
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (1986, W. W. Norton & Company)
Dennett, Daniel, "The Case of the Tell-Tale Traces: A Mystery Solved; a Skyhook Grounded" (March 19, 1997)
Orr, H. Allen, "Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again); The latest attack on evolution is cleverly argued, biologically informed-and wrong" (12/96-1/97 issue of Boston Review)
Orr, H. Allen, "Book Review: No Free Lunch" (Summer 2002 issue of Boston Review)
Shreeve, James "Design for Living" (August 4, 1996, New York Book Review)
The Grey Lady must be desperate for topical op-ed submissions, although even well-written but atopical submissions, the specialty of the American literary system, would be preferable to today’s piece by Michael J. Behe (2005), in which he argues that intelligent design is not only a viable theory of the origin and development of life, but is preferable to Darwinism.
It is true that evolution has not explained everything its proponents would have liked to explain. However, it is important to differentiate between two different gaps in our evolutionary knowledge.
Irreducible Complexity
To Mr. Behe, "[a]n irreducibly complex system 'cannot be produced directly . . . by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.'" (H. Allen Orr (1996/7 & 2002)) A truly irreducibly complex system would be a system that cannot be explained as having arisen, either in whole or an exaption of another structures that could have arisen, through random mutations and which developed to its current functions through natural selection. If any structure could be shown to be irreducibly complex, then it would show modern Darwinism (as a complete explanation of the intergenerational development of living organisms) to be incorrect much as Einstein's theory of relativity has shown the flaws in Newtonian physics.
However, biologists are of the belief that such systems are only apparantly irreducibly complex. Whether through scaffolding ("At each step, a part gets added that improves a structure's function. At some point, however, a substructure might appear that no longer needs the remaining parts. These useless parts could then fall away. The key point is that the substructure we're left with might be irreducibly complex. Remove any part now and all hell breaks loose.") or through incremental indispensibility ("An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become—because of later changes—essential."), it is very likely that irreducibly complex systems have evolved.
Historical Record
The scientific method has a significant limitation when used to explain the actual operation of evolution, which is an account of a historical process and, if the historical record is not available, will not be falsifiable. There are often multiple Darwinian explanations for the devlopment of certain natural structures, and additional hypotheses proposed by other systems, such as LaMarck's system of evolution or intelligent design.
It is easy to either disprove or nullify these alternative systems as methods of prediction - LaMarck's theory fails to explain observed natural selection and experiments with intelligent design will only explain observable natural selection if it is postulated that either: (a) the designer has decided to design what Darwinian evolution would have selected for or (b) the designer has decided, when his work is being studied, to allow Darwinian evolution to run its course.
However, trivilizing any other theory of development under observable conditions will not prove that it cannot explain a past devoid of historical record. The actual development of living organisms will always be subject to doubt, alternative hypotheses will usually not be fasifiable, and normal scientific experimentation is impossible. This, of course, makes Darwinism into a "flavor of the week" exercise, undermines its credibility, and bogs down many more writers in supporting their historical theory (or criticizing others') than in other, more fitting pursuits, such as defending evolution from its critics. Appropriately, this meshes beautifully with America's culture of mass-production and disposable consumerism, so it could be that the very interest in the historical nature of Darwinism is an American creation.
The Designer
Mr. Behe leaves "open" the nature of the designer (and states that intelligence design is not a religious theory), but to make his point valid the Designer itself must not have been the subject of evolution (if it was, then all intelligent design proves is that living organisms can influence evolution - human selective breeding of plants and animals over the last millennia strongly supports that theory).
As difficult as it is to believe that even the most complex cells were designed by God or an alien race, it cannot be ruled out. However, Mr. Behe's "four points" do not bear scrutiny as a criticism of evolution.
Four Points of Intelligent Design
#1: "We can often recognize the effects of design in nature."
We do recognize the effects of design in nature - Mt. Rushmore (referenced by Mr. Behe) and the street grid of midtown Manhattan are at least two examples of the effects of design. However, the folding of proteins and the lattice-structure of a salt crystal also are "effects of design" - organized structures that are not random (and seem "purpose" driven). But Mr. Behe is being disingenuous. What we are discussing here are effects that appear to humans to be designed. Salt crystals do not appear to be designed, because relatively simple inter- and intra-molecule interactions determine exactly how the molecules line up in the crystal. Only the most ardent opponent of science would argue that protein folding is "designed", even though the folding mechanism is currently uncertain.
I have read that algorithms for the folding process are not solvable. As the complexity of the protein strand increases, the time to determine the folding process quickly increases to infinity. (I am not sure if the algorithms are np complete.) The conundrum is how the protein manages, in real world conditions, to fold so quickly. There are theories that quantum computing is used and that, in effect, the protein tries every combination nearly simultaneously, quickly finding the stable structure.
#2: "The physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology."
This is quite clearly setting up the proof by assuming the conclusion. Biology evidences design, evolution does not "design", therefore there must be a designer. If #1 had been more honest, and admitted that we are discussing the appearance of design, then this points has been discussed ad naseum by Richard Dawkins (1986) in his book The Blind Watchmaker. In short, evolution is not purpose-based but, through its nature, creates structures in a way that appear purpose based. An eye was not created because someone wanted an organism to see, but because light sensitive cells have made it more likely that their host would have progenity, and genes for better, more complex combinations of such cells and their supporting mechanisms will have still more progenity.
#3: "We have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence."
Excellent articles criticizing Behe (1996), upon which the recent New York Times op-ed piece was based) reveals just how empty this statement is. Shreeve (1996), Dennett (1997) and Orr (1996/7) argue that the inability for evolution to explain the "foundation of life" is, in the absence of truly irreducible complexity, merely a failure of imagination. More than likely, refinements to evolution will reveal the answers or satisfactory historical arguments will be advanced. They will not be perfect explanations, compared to E=MC^2 or the score of the Superbowl last night (24-21 Patriots over the Eagles), but they will be far better than an explanation from a system that cannot be supported by testable hypotheses unless it is assumed to mimic (in every testable situation) the very system its proponents are attacking.
#4: "In the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life."
Well, I am convinced by the non-design explanation. However, even for those who are not, Mr. Behe's logical argument, as I explain above, falls flat.
Conclusion
I admit that many aspects of the scientific explanation for natural phenomena is unsatisfying. There are many holes in our present understanding of evolution and there will always be gaps in our historical knowledge. However, I wish that I could convey the sheer power of the idea of evolution, the beauty that such a simple system could create such complexity, and the thrill that accompanies the knowledge that existence (of everything) is such a low probability event.
Epilogue
As I read somewhere (perhaps Gregg Easterbrook in The Progress Paradox) modern Western culture is facing a meaning gap. For as long as meaning has been important, it has been handed to us, but we can no longer take such meaning for granted. While I cannot say that I am happier for this, I can say that it is essential for our development as human beings to be able to make our own meaning. We are no longer meaningfully subject to evolution, so maybe the search for meaning is our biggest purpose in life.
I do not expect anyone to enjoy what I am writing here - my methods are crude and my prose banal. Maybe I will get better, but regardless it is an exercise. An exercise in searching for meaning. Perhaps it is also a self-carthartic exercise. It heals the soul to assess the validity and worth of our ideas, regardless of how well rate. I will have to leave it to future posts to determine how to define and measure such qualities.
dch
Behe, Michael J., Darwin's Black Box: The Chemical Challenge to Evolution (1998, Free Press)
Behe, Michael J., "Design for Living" (New York Times, February 7, 2005)
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (1986, W. W. Norton & Company)
Dennett, Daniel, "The Case of the Tell-Tale Traces: A Mystery Solved; a Skyhook Grounded" (March 19, 1997)
Orr, H. Allen, "Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again); The latest attack on evolution is cleverly argued, biologically informed-and wrong" (12/96-1/97 issue of Boston Review)
Orr, H. Allen, "Book Review: No Free Lunch" (Summer 2002 issue of Boston Review)
Shreeve, James "Design for Living" (August 4, 1996, New York Book Review)
posted by Daniel Holzer at 2:02 PM
0 comments
