The Rhino on Irreducible Complexity
By Anthony | January 19th, 2006 | 1:44 amLast week, RhinoTimes writer Orson Scott Card gave his take on the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate. Though he sounds reasonable in a few places, he seems to have some misconceptions. In writing about the ID concept of Irreducible Complexity, Card says:
Basically, Behe’s approach was this: Complex systems in advanced organisms depend on many biochemical steps, all of which must be in place for the system to work at all.
So how, Behe asked, could such a complex system have evolved, if the only method available was random variation plus natural selection?
It would be impossible to believe that the entire series of steps in the complex system could randomly appear all at once. But any one step along the way, since it does nothing by itself, could not give the organism that had it any competitive advantage. So why would each of those traits persist and prevail long enough for the complex system to fall into place?
Behe’s conclusion is that since complex biochemical systems in advanced organisms could not have evolved through strict Darwinian evolution, the only possible explanation is that the system was designed and put into place deliberately.
In other words, though he shuns the word, complex systems had to have a creator – they have to be intelligently designed.
He goes on to sum up the “Darwinist response” with a strawman which I will ignore, as I’ve never seen an Evolutionist respond as he claims. There are in fact, perfectly valid responses to claims of irreducible complexity:
1. Some of the examples often given of irreducibly complex (IC) systems are demonstrably not irreducibly complex. For instance, whales are “missing” parts of their blood clotting system, yet their blood still clots with no problem. The eye has been cited as an IC system, however there are many sorts of eyes of varying complexity in the animal kingdom, from light-sensitive spots, to the human eye, and everywhere in between. Each one of them is functional in some way and conveys a competitive advantage.
2. There are several known ways in which IC systems may evolve:
How might an IC system evolve? One possibility is that in the past, the function may have been done with more parts than are strictly necessary. Then an ‘extra’ part may be lost, leaving an IC system. Or the parts may become co-adapted to perform even better, but become unable to perform the specified function at all without each other. This brings up another point: the parts themselves evolve. Behe’s parts are usually whole proteins or even larger. A protein is made up of hundreds of smaller parts called amino acids, of which twenty different kinds may be used. Evolution usually changes these one by one. Another important fact is that DNA evolves. What difference does this make, compared to saying that proteins evolve? If you think about it, each protein that your body makes is made at just the right time, in just the right place and in just the right amount. These details are also coded in your DNA (with timing and quantity susceptible to outside influences) and so are subject to mutation and evolution. For our purposes we can refer to this as deployment of parts. When a protein is deployed out of its usual context, it may be co-opted for a different function. A fourth noteworthy possibility is that brand new parts are created. This typically comes from gene duplication, which is well known in biology. At first the duplicate genes make the same protein, but these genes may evolve to make slightly different proteins that depend on each other.
3. Computer simulations have actually demonstrated IC systems evolving:
What gets IDCs edgy about the Lenski, et al., paper is that the assembly language programs – the genomes of the digital critters – that evolved to perform those complicated logic functions are “irreducibly complex�? in exactly the definition of Michael Behe …
Behe (and Dembski, following him) contends that “irreducibly complex” structures and processes are not accessible to evolutionary processes: they cannot have evolved by “Darwinian” mechanisms … But Lenski, et al., showed that the assembly language programs evolved in avida satisfy Behe’s operational (knockout) definition. If replacing an instruction with a null instruction (a knockout procedure) in a digital critter’s program results in the loss of a logic function, the program is “irreducibly complex” by Behe’s definition (or is part of the “irreducible core” of the critter’s program, to use Dembski’s term). So the Lenski, et al., analysis shows that “irreducibly complex” structures can evolve by plain old “Darwinian” mechanisms.
As you can see, there are arguments against irreducible complexity if one takes the time to look for them. I would have rather seen Card address these rather than the strawman he presented, but maybe he was just unaware of the rebuttals.
Another point to consider is that even though there are indeed gaps in our knowledge about evolution, this doesn’t warrant an attempt to replace the theory of evolution with something else. All scientific theories have gaps. That’s the point of research, to try to fill in those gaps. Claiming to know the answer – that a given system was designed – based on a lack of knowledge is not the way to go. The honest and logical course is to say “we don’t know that yet” and to keep looking for answers.
Further Reading:
January 19th, 2006 at 2:30 am
Using ID to explain missing empirical data is ridiculous. I agree that “we” don’t understand IC systems, but that’s like having someone in Columbus’ time disputing that the world is round. Just human beings don’t understand how something works does not mean that it couldn’t have been due to evolution or what not.
Same thing with all chaotic natures of science. Perhaps it seems perfectly random currently, such as chaos theory. But within every chaotic pattern is logic since everything is bound by the laws of physics and science. Until we have irrefutable proof that those laws can be broken… ID is not the solution to explain things we don’t understand.
And obviously Orson Scott Card isn’t a Catholic either. :p
January 19th, 2006 at 8:21 am
I often wonder why a designer would make things complex in the first place (or make us smarter). We all know simple is better.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
A common dissenting opinion to ID is that ID is used to explain something that scientists do not yet understand, or that ID makes a claim based on the lack of evidence. I think leading scientists who are open to the idea of ID are in fact making arguments based on the plethora of recent evidence that modern science has unveiled. I argue that a scientist who is convinced that ID is right, is not a good scientist. All possibilities must remain open until there is irrefutable proof. However, there is mounting evidence that Darwin’s theories are flawed, and I’m beginning to believe that ID should have equal time (to Darwin), or at least be mentioned as an alternative theory, within the public school system.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I think PotatoStew pointed it out most correctly (imho) on my blog. Science is the “how” where is Religion is the “why”. While they are related, I tend to believe that ID cops out when it comes to trying to delve into the “how” of things.
For example: Back in the day when the world was flat… and you questioned it, then the answers would be:
ID – Because an intelligent being greater than us made it flat.
Science – But I don’t believe it, so let’s see for myself.
Or… 1+1=3.
ID – Because a more advanced being deemed it so.
Science – but when you put one apple in the basket, and another apple in the basket, is there not two apples?
Now I’m not saying religion doesn’t have its place, but I don’t believe it to be in the realm of science just as our physical world is bound by mathematics and science, while religion binds our spiritual world (or lack of in the case of atheists). The why is just as important, but ID tries to relate apples to oranges.
January 19th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
“Now I’m not saying religion doesn’t have its place…”
Well I know God will be relieved to hear that, darkmoon.
[she giggles]
January 19th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Hi Brad, thanks for taking the time to leave a comment.
“I think leading scientists who are open to the idea of ID are in fact making arguments based on the plethora of recent evidence that modern science has unveiled.”
Could you give one or two examples of their arguments that are based on recent evidence?
“All possibilities must remain open until there is irrefutable proof.”
In science, there is no such thing as irrefutable proof. Observation and experimentation can lend very strong support to theories, or can conclusively disprove a theory, but even for very successful theories there is always the possibility that the next set of observations are going to invalidate the theory or some aspect of it.
Besides, the idea that all possibilities must remain open isn’t quite true from a scientific standpoint. For instance, I may have a hypothesis that invisible, undetectable balls of energy revolve around the earth, and when these balls collide, they warp the Global Probability Field (I just made that up) causing highly improbable events to occur, such as the spontaneous generation of life, or new species suddenly appearing. Is my idea a possibility? Certainly. Should the scientific community give the idea serious consideration? Definitely not. The possibility I gave is “closed” to science because science has no way to observe it or quantify it. The “balls of energy” in my hypothesis are undetectable, so it’s impossible to investigate them or say anything about them using the tools of science.
“I’m beginning to believe that ID should have equal time (to Darwin), or at least be mentioned as an alternative theory, within the public school system.”
Then you should encourage IDers to pay their dues: Come up with an actual theory (in the scientific sense, not in the colloquial “guess” sense), specify a mechanism for how design occurs, create an actual research program and experiments (and carry them out) and publish papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. That’s how a theory gains acceptance and makes it into the science classroom, not through a political and legal end run around the scientific community.
If they do manage to wiggle their way into schools, I think I want my energy ball theory talked about as well. 🙂
darkmoon:
“I tend to believe that ID cops out when it comes to trying to delve into the “howâ€? of things.”
Exactly right. ID doesn’t provide a “how.” It tries to substitute a “who” in place of a “how.”
January 20th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
“Then you should encourage IDers to pay their dues: Come up with an actual theory”
I do agree with that Stew. But, have you ever considered that the teaching of Darwin only pre-determines the path that young scientists take when they enter college and into their doctorate work? In other words, it encourages athesim, or at best some form of agnostism? There are huge obstacles to overcome for serious ID work to make any headway in the current scientific establishment.
I will try to dig up some examples I read in the past and present them.
January 20th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
“But, have you ever considered that the teaching of Darwin only pre-determines the path that young scientists take when they enter college and into their doctorate work?”
No more or less than the teaching of other established and accepted theories pre-determines their path in other branches of science. Why single out evolutionary theory? Shouldn’t we teach alchemy alongside chemistry so as to not pre-determine their path for them? Astrology alongside astronomy?
“In other words, it encourages athesim, or at best some form of agnostism?”
Two points here: There are plenty of scientists and non-scientists who accept evolution and believe in God. The fact that certain denominations of Christianity can’t reconcile the two doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. Evolutionary theory (or any scientific theory) does not and cannot disprove the existence of God.
Secondly, it’s not the job of public schools to encourage a belief in God. Their job, with regards to science, is to teach what the scientific method tells us about the world. Any encouragement in theistic beliefs is best left to parents.
“There are huge obstacles to overcome for serious ID work to make any headway in the current scientific establishment.”
I agree, and that’s how it should be. Big Bang theory is a prime example. When the idea was first conceived, it was rejected by scientists. What did Big Bang proponents do? They certainly didn’t try to skip those obstacles and jump directly into the classroom. They worked on their theory, made predictions, and devised experiments. As the predictions were borne out and the data was shown to support the theory, scientists began to accept the theory, and now it’s taught in school. That’s the way it’s usually done, and I’m not sure why ID should get an exemption from this.
“I will try to dig up some examples I read in the past and present them.”
Sounds good. Thanks again for the replies, I appreciate the conversation!
February 21st, 2006 at 4:33 pm
PotatoStew,
I just found this website that summarizes a few of the better examples/arguments against Darwinism.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
I have a feeling that you have invested a lot of your time on this subject, so these arguments are probably not new to you.
I am not a hard core ID’er. And I’m not a Phd in the relevant subjects ( Are you?). But, I believe that if credible arguments exist against a theory as polarizing as Darwinism, then these arguments should at least be mentioned in a footnote of a biology textbook. I would argue that the typical politician does not have the background to make intelligent policy decisions on this subject.
Also, I’m not sure if some ID proponents can do this, but I can separate arguments against Darwin’s theory of evolution, and evolution as it really happens. Evolution is not killed just because Darwin’s particular theory of it is flawed. Like you said, some people support both evolution and the existence of God. But believing Darwin’s theory of it may be altogether another story….