OK, look. I have as many problems with darwinian evolution as the next guy, probably more. I have almost as many problems with the neo-Darwinists as basically all they did was try to define the problems away. I mean, Darwin stated that in order for his theory to be correct, evolution would have to occur in small changes spread fairly uniformly over vast lengths of time. Now we know that evolution does not occur that way, that change comes rapidly, then slows, and for reasons we can't even begin to make a good guess at. Neo Darwinists have had to tinker so much with the theory of evolution that I am comfortable in saying that Darwin himself would reject the bastard progeny of his rather elegant theory were he alive today.
However, it's the best working theory we've got, and the holes in it just show areas where we need more knowledge.
ID on the other hand, is snake oil pure and simple. There is no science behind it because it makes an invalid logical leap. Put simply, IDers claim that since evolution is flawed and there are aspects of life that evolution as currently constructed cannot explain, then Intelligent Design is the only alternative.
Wrongo, me buckos. Disproof of one theory is not proof of another, no matter how much you might wish it to be so in your pointy little heads.
Here is a quick and dirty rundown of ID, including the fatal flaw, as gleaned from Michael Behe's Book, Darwin's Black Box
Behe claims that certain biochemical systems in cells are so complex and so sensitive to change that they couldn't possibly have evolved since even one small change would render the system non-functional. He calls this the principle of irreducible complexity, and uses a simple mousetrap as an example. If you remove one piece of a mousetrap, he says, it no longer functions as a mousetrap. Therefore the different pieces could not have been assembled through the series of small changes described by evolutionary theory, therefore a mousetrap could not evolve. And since it could not have evolved, it must have been designed and manufactured.
Holy Creationism, Batman! He's got a good point.
This is why Robin is destined to maintain his sidekick status and never make it to full fledged crimefighter even if he does change his name to Nightwing. Mr. Behe glosses over several other possibilities evident even to a casual science observer like myself.
Example the first. Current theories allow for a primordial soup of complex chemicals globbing together in self replicating bunches, then encapsulating and so on and so forth. The details are kind of sketchy since it's tough to recreate a million or so years of time under laboratory conditions unless you have a spare solar system and a few million years to play with and since we're not hyperdimensional mice with that kind of time on our hands, we'll have to muddle through.
So, assuming the soup theory is correct, how hard is it to conceive of an encapsulation of not only all the necessary parts for a mousetrap, or in the case of evolution, a complex biochemical system, but also about a hundred thousand extra chemicals hanging out in the globule as well? Apparently not that hard since I can conceive of it. Now all evolution has to do is get rid of the redundant parts, refining a process that already exists until the system reaches maximum efficiency, defined as no extraneous parts. We now have a complex biochemical system where each component is absolutely vital to the functioning of the system and we got there using the small successive changes required by Darwinian theory.
Thanks you, please hold all applause until the presentation is complete.
I call this redundant complexity and it blows irreducible complexity out of the water.
Example the second. Behe said that any change in the components of a mousetrap render it unusable as a mousetrap. He never mentions that perhaps the intermediate forms had a use other than as a mousetrap? A mouse trap with a broken spring can be used as a paperweight, no? Many biochemical systems share components; the same chemicals are used over and over in different applications. Isn't it possible that incompletely formed biochemical systems may have served other functions, even if not very efficiently?
Yes it is and thank you for asking.
And that about wraps it up for irreducible complexity, which is a mortal wound for ID, since we no longer require (and never actually did) a designer to create those irreducibly complex systems; they very well could have arisen from Darwinian changes.
PS: This attack on ID is much more robust than the conventional "ID is not science because it's not a falsifiable hypothesis" argument that most make because once you get past the near religious fervor which many evolution scientists profess, Neo-Darwinism is no more falsifiable than is ID.
Posted by Rich at August 3, 2005 2:10 AM | TrackBackRich -
You really didn't do Behe's argument justice, but that is beside the point. Behe disproves evolutionary science quite well, and that leads him to the conclusion of Intelligent Design. Fair enough. Other minds can come to other conclusions of how life all began, but one question remains with regards to your soup theory (which you kinda pull out of thin air and - poof! - it supports your whole argument):
Where did the soup come from?
If you believe in the "Big Bang" theory, there has to be several elements already present to ignite the reaction. Where did they come from?
Behe says that it was from a Higher Power. I have to say that certainly makes more sense than, "It was just there," which violates too many laws of physics and chemistry to remain plausable.
Cheers,
Rob