Modesty Survey

TheRebelution.com: The Modesty Survey

Friday, July 25, 2008

Intelligent Design - Part III




Chapter Three
Detecting Intelligent Design

Until recently, no methods of detecting intelligent design existed (Dembski 2003a). The two most common methods used today are specified complexity and irreducible complexity.

Specified Complexity

Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski formulated the specified complexity method for detecting design (2004a). Objects that have these three characteristics – contingency, complexity, and specificity - are said to show design.


Contingency

Something contingent is a possibility - but not the only possibility. For example, if I toss a coin with one side heads and one side tails, heads is a possibility, but so is tails. The result of the coin toss is contingent because more than one possibility exists. However, if heads is on both sides of the coin, heads is always the result and no choice exists. Therefore, natural laws explain the result because natural laws always have the same result (Intelligent Design Basics undated).

Complexity
Anything that is complex has a number of interrelated parts that makes chance an improbable cause (Intelligent Design Basics undated). For example, a sentence is complex compared to a single letter in the alphabet.

Specificity

This term refers to anything that follows a meaningful pattern. For example, although the letter “a” is simple and not complex, it follows a pattern: it is the first letter of the alphabet (Dembski 2003a).

Using the alphabet as an example, below is an illustration of specified complexity based on the three characteristics described above.


Object
1. Letter "a" of the alphabet
2. Lengthy string of letters in no particular order (i.e., gbaozmt)
3. Arrangement of letters in a poem

Contingent
1. Yes: 25 other choices
2. Yes: various combinations possible
3. Yes: other possible poems

Complex
1. No: too simple
2. Yes: many components
3. Yes: many components

Specified
1. Yes: always the first letter of the alphabet (pattern)
2. No: no meaningful pattern
3. Yes: follows the pattern of grammar

In all cases of specified complexity in which cause is known, intelligence is responsible (Dembski 1999; Meyer 2000).

Irreducible Complexity

Biochemist Michael Behe (1996) writes about the concept of irreducible complexity in his book Darwin’s Black Box. Behe argues that biological systems show design due to their irreducibly complex nature. If an object is irreducibly complex, it cannot be reduced to a simpler, functioning object; and the object must contain all of its parts at the same time in order to function. If any part is removed, the object will no longer work. This characteristic found in nature presents a problem for Darwinian evolution.

Darwin wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (Behe 1996, p 39; Strobel 2004, p 197).

Behe (1996) states that since all components of a complex system must be in place at once in order to function, the system could not have possibly evolved as Darwin describes.

The Standard Mousetrap

To illustrate the concept of irreducible complexity, Behe (1996) refers to the standard mousetrap with five parts: platform, hammer, spring, catch, holding bar (See figure 3.1). If any one of these parts is missing, the trap will not function.

Table 3.2 illustrates how scientists determine if an object or system is irreducibly complex. Using the mousetrap as an example, Behe (1996) asks three questions as the following table demonstrates:

Table 3.2 Steps to Determine Irreducible Complexity

Step
Can the scientist name the function and components of the system?
Mousetrap Characteristic
Function: trap mice
Components: platform, catch, hammer, spring, holding bar

Step
Are all parts necessary for the object to function?
Mousetrap Characteristic
Yes – For example, if the holding bar is missing, the trap will not catch mice.

Step
Are there any functional precursors?*
Mousetrap Characteristics
No – The trap with five parts did not “evolve” from a simpler form.

*Behe (1996) explains that other means to catch mice exist, i.e., glue traps, boxes propped with sticks, etc. However, none of these can develop into a mousetrap that includes a platform, catch, hammer, spring, and holding bar. This means the mousetrap has no functional precursors.




Figure 3.1 Standard Mousetrap
source: McDonald, John H. 2000. A reducibly complex mousetrap. Accessed 2005 March 31.


Evolutionists’ Arguments Against Mousetrap Analogy

Some evolutionists argue that the mousetrap does not demonstrate irreducible complexity. In an interview with Lee Strobel (2004), Michael Behe discusses two of those arguments as follows:

Ø It is possible to build a less complex, functioning mousetrap with fewer parts. Behe agrees; however, the point is that the mousetrap Behe refers to could not be created gradually because it would not function until all parts are fully in place.

Ø Perhaps natural selection preserved the components as they served other purposes while a complex system developed. Ken Miller, Brown University professor and evolutionist, makes this argument. In his analogy, Miller theoretically removes parts of Behe’s mousetrap and assigns functions to these components until they can develop into the mousetrap.

Some components in complex systems can have other functions. However, the question is whether or not these functions will develop into a complex system through a series of modifications over time. Behe writes: “He’s [Miller] starting from the finished product—the mousetrap—and disassembling it and moving a few things around to use them for other purposes. Again, that’s intelligent design!” (Strobel 2004, p 200).

Irreducible complexity is not the only complication for Darwinian evolution. Related to irreducible complexity is a concept called “minimal function.” For Darwin’s natural selection to work, objects must have minimal function. For example, not only does the mousetrap need all of its parts, these parts must work efficiently. If the mousetrap platform is made out of paper, the platform is too weak to support the other parts, which reduces the ability of the trap to function (Behe 1996).

We have focused on man-made objects to illustrate design. What about complex living organisms? Do they exhibit irreducible complexity and specified complexity as well?

In the next chapter, we will look at biological examples of intelligent design.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Until recently, no methods of detecting MAGIC existed (Dembski 2003a).

In the next chapter, we will look at biological examples of MAGIC.

Dembski is a laughing-stock of the scientific community. His dishonesty is well documented. He's a professional liar for Jesus and he knows nothing about science.

Anonymous said...

"Some evolutionists argue that the mousetrap does not demonstrate irreducible complexity. In an interview with Lee Strobel (2004), Michael Behe discusses two of those arguments as follows:

"It is possible to build a less complex, functioning mousetrap with fewer parts. Behe agrees; however, the point is that the mousetrap Behe refers to could not be created gradually because it would not function until all parts are fully in place."


Like most analogies, this one is overly simplified and is easily discredited. Actual IC biosystems fit the IC paradigm for multiple reasons.

"Perhaps natural selection preserved the components as they served other purposes while a complex system developed. Ken Miller, Brown University professor and evolutionist, makes this argument."

Exaptation (cooption) works in some cases, but not in a continuous progression. It is the exception, rather than the rule.

"Irreducible complexity is not the only complication for Darwinian evolution. Related to irreducible complexity is a concept called “minimal function.” For Darwin’s natural selection to work, objects must have minimal function."

Not only 'minimal function', but a with reproductive advantage vigorous enough to become fixed in the population. That would be true for each mutational change. For adaptation to environmental changes yes. For variety, yes. But for macro- alterations, never.

Anonymous said...

bobxxxx said...

"Until recently, no methods of detecting MAGIC existed (Dembski 2003a)."

By MAGIC, I assume you're alluding to the 'poof' scenario or instantaneous creation by divine fiat. The fossil record says otherwise.

But while we're on the subject, would you consider the universe forming from nothing a kind of magic, or an example of material causation? The BB theory is considered science, I've been told.

I don't accept the Genesis account of creation, nor does ID in its basic hypothesis. Some accept it for personal/ religious reasons, but don't conflate it with Intelligent Design as currently defined.

John the Skeptic said...

Every biological structure that Behe has cited as an example of irreducible complexity has been refuted. His favorite example, the bacterial flagellum, has been shown to be, in fact, "reducible" to the type-III secretion system.

In his latest book, Behe predicted that HIV could never evolve a particular binding site. Amusingly, this very new evolved feature was reported within a few weeks of the publication of Behe's "The Edge of Evolution".

HIV-1 VPU has a new binding site, YRKL in the cytoplasmic alpha helical section, not present in SIVcpz Vpu, which efficiently targets Vpu to the Gogli complex. Behe predicted that this could never evolve.

Oh well, so much for irreducible complexity.

Kim said...

John the Sceptic says, "Every biological structure that Behe has cited as an example of irreducible complexity has been refuted. His favorite example, the bacterial flagellum, has been shown to be, in fact, "reducible" to the type-III secretion system."

This is false. I will address this in an upcoming entry.

Anonymous said...

"Every biological structure that Behe has cited as an example of irreducible complexity has been refuted. His favorite example, the bacterial flagellum, has been shown to be, in fact, "reducible" to the type-III secretion system."

I respectfully disagree. The args given for that premise do not stand up to scrutiny. They are sparse, and raise more questions than they address.

"In his latest book, Behe predicted that HIV could never evolve a particular binding site. Amusingly, this very new evolved feature was reported within a few weeks of the publication of Behe's "The Edge of Evolution".

"HIV-1 VPU has a new binding site, YRKL in the cytoplasmic alpha helical section, not present in SIVcpz Vpu, which efficiently targets Vpu to the Gogli complex."

"Behe predicted that this could never evolve."


Since you've cited Ian Musgrave's statement form 'An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe (bolded text), let me quote Behe's response from his Amazon blog:

" ... although not identical, SIV variants have similar sequences at the same location (2): YKRN; WKRN; WRQI; etc. Given the mutation rate of HIV of 10-4, and the fact that an infected individual carries 108-109 viral copies, the conversion of an SIV variant into the Golgi retention signal YRKL could take place with relative ease: perhaps one such de novo mutant per year in a population of ten thousand organisms. If it gave a selective advantage, there would be no problem for this arising by Darwinian means.

He concludes, and I bolded his bottom line defense of his position:

At this point I should perhaps remind Dr. Musgrave that the title of my book is The Edge of Evolution. In it I explain that Darwinian processes can do some things, but not others, and I try to find a rough dividing line. As I emphasize, that means one has to make distinctions between categories. A virus like HIV, with its small genome size and much greater mutation rate, has to be considered differently from cells with their larger genome sizes and lower mutation rates. As a rule of thumb, HIV can acquire two specific point mutations as easily as a cell can acquire one. And with its great population size, it would be child’s play for HIV to alter many signaling sequences. To answer Dr. Musgrave’s question, I wouldn’t list this as a new binding site, not because it doesn’t bind a cellular protein, but because, as I explicitly state in the book, I place viral protein-cellular protein interactions in a separate category. My book concerns cellular protein-protein binding sites (or new viral-viral sites)."


http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/an-open-letter-3.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2

Behe has it tough. Make one false or questionable statement and he will be jumped on by ten scientists, and cited in a hundred or so blogs and journals. In the end, he just may be right in his basic conclusions, based on the same evidence that the evos have to go on, but from (I feel) a more objective and viable dissection of the facts.