Evolution News & Views

With the rise in public desire for information about intelligent design and the overall debate over how to teach evolution it is no surprise that we're seeing more classes on intelligent design at colleges, albeit usually in philosophy as opposed to science. Much attention has been given to the future course on ID recently announced at Cornell. But, Knox College is just now finishing a course on the subject.

From the media report it's a little hard to tell what the actual content of the course was. But according to the professor Martin Roth students seemed to appreciate the chance to learn about ID.

"All of the students are now very much aware that the issue is far more complicated than implied by the media,” Roth added."

"The principal reading material was Debating Design by Michael Ruse as well as excerpts and articles by William Dembski and others on intelligent design and natural selection. In addition, the class studied some chapters of Phillip E. Johnson’s Darwin on Trial and Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists by Benjamin Wiker and Dembski."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 6:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. George Coyne, the University of Arizona astronomer and Jesuit priest who is also head of the Vatican Observatory has been speaking to whatever Darwinist group will have him on the topic of why intelligent design "belittles God" and should be opposed by Catholics, who, indeed, should welcome Darwin's theory in all its glory. Coyne has infinite Christian charity and patience for Darwinists who diss God, but none at all for his co-religionists who doubt Darwin.

A news article last week in the National Catholic Register that merely reported Coyne's provocative views sparked a spate of letters this week (April 30-May 6 issue--not yet available online) rebuking Dr. Coyne for misrepresenting ID (among other things he called it "a fundamentalist movement") and for attacking Cardinal Schoenborn of Austria. The cardinal, of course, has emphasized the Church's longstanding commitment to the reality of design in nature and has pointed out the folly of full-blown Darwinism. At the end of the extensive letters column the editors make clear that they were not endorsing Coyne's views. In fact, they state, "Our editorial position...is very close to that of the Discovery Institute."

The same issue carries a droll and insightful column by CatholicExchange.com editor Mark Shea--"Lack of Intelligence about Design"--that also takes the critics of ID to task. Shea suggests that Catholics read Romans 1:20 where St. Paul points to God's eternal power that "has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made." Shea asks why, then, signs of intelligent design that can be examined scientifically should pose any obstacle to Catholics. Like the Register's letter writers, he observes that Darwinists can only succeed in discrediting ID if they can get away with misrepresenting it. "The longer I listen to the debate," he writes, "the more I do detect a real note of fearful defensiveness--from the partisans on the ramparts of the citadel of evolutionary orthodoxy."

Evangelicals also are weighing in on the theme of what makes a fair debate on evolution; to wit, John Wilson's fine essay, "Science in Wonderland," in the April issue of Christianity Today. Wilson, the editor of Books & Culture, broadly describes "250 millions years" of evolution controversy. Among other things, he examines the latest academic hypocrisy that would disallow ID but professes excitement about string theory as a response to the charges against materialist explanations of cosmology and life's origins. String theory, multi-verses, parallel universes; it's all very stimulating conjecture, but it doesn't generate any evidence.

"The contempt that many scientists have expressed for Intelligent Design knows no bounds, but it can be summarized in a single dismissive sentence: 'It's not science.' Now string theory--that's another matter," Wilson quips. "String theory generates articles and grants and symposia."

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 4:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Human Events Online has published a wonderful little essay by Greg Frankey explaining how liberal organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are working to keep any mention of intelligent design out of public school classes of any stripe, let alone science classes.

In arguing so he shows how the teaching of evolution itself is nothing more than dogma, and points to some of the more pressing problems with the whole theory.

As counterintuitive as it seems that a species could develop new physical traits simply because such a mutation might be advantageous (can we all learn to fly or to breathe underwater if we just wish to long enough?), it simply defies credulity to think that human beings not only physically evolved from ape-like creatures, but developed the ability to think rationally by a similar process.

Certainly this would be an unprecedented phenomenon, entailing a much more extreme manner of natural selection than that which is known to occur.

According to Casey Luskin, Public Policy spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which is seeking to establish the right of teachers to question Evolutionary theory, the question isn't whether it would have been advantageous for man to develop the ability to reason -- of course it would have. The real question is whether mutations are capable of producing this. "This certainly seems to strain Darwin's theory. It appears that something else has to be added to the equation to explain human complexity."

In wrapping up Frankey writes:

The reality is that simply accepting Darwinian dogma in spite of the many troublesome questions that arise entails far more faith than simply subscribing to Intelligent Design -- or believing in God. This is not to state with finality that evolutionary theory is false -- only that there are enough substantive problems with it that attempting to characterize it as all but factual, and therefore immune from challenge is a fundamentally flawed view.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 6:13 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last night's debate before 800 at Town Hall in Seattle was a notable success for Dr. Stephen Meyer, Discovery Institute and the case for intelligent design. The Seattle Times co-sponsored the "Talk of the Times" event with Town Hall and their respective representatives seemed surprised by the large public response. Like some of the local Darwinists with whom I and other Discovery staff spoke afterwards, they probably were surprised also by the outcome. Call it a technical knockout.

David Postman of The Seattle Times, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and Dr. Peter Ward

Several University of Washington professors came to provide moral support to Dr. Peter Ward, the well-known UW astrobiologist, but they may have wondered why he had agreed to debate in the first place. Ward is smart, avuncular and funny in a sarcastic way. But he thinks he knows more about ID than he does and he was trying to catch up to the pace-setting Meyer all the way.

Meyer had one strategy going into this rare event: talk about the science and don't let the debate degrade into name-calling. David Postman, a political correspondent for the Seattle Times, whose front-page piece for yesterday's paper had been criticized by us for misreporting the definition of intelligent design, allowed Meyer to open the "conversation" with his own explanation of ID. Ward's repost that ID was just "dogma" was limp.

At times the discussion was pointed, other times humorous.

The definition of ID led to discussion of the evidence for design (and why it is not an argument from ignorance), the replies to critics' demands that ID proponents show how ID is testable and makes predictions, the philosophical assumptions that define science, the way design is found in the cell's digital code, the centrality of information, nanotechnology, and the Cambrian Explosion. All these topics were concisely and engagingly explained by Meyer, even while Ward tried to throw him off with repeated interjections ("It's not a 'theory'!) and rude distractions (a charade of shoveling, for example, to which Meyer rejoined, not losing his place, "That's a gesture, not an argument").

Ward's histrionics didn't work or impress anyone other than the more ribald Darwinists present, and not even all the Darwinists were pleased. His opening gambit was a characterization of ID as mere "politics", after which he attacked George Bush! Postman, the moderator, took immediate note that the only person bringing up politics was Ward himself.

Postman turned out to be an adroit and fair moderator, giving just enough slack to each speaker. He guided the debate rather than controlling it.

The sold-out audience of 800, many students, packed Town Hall

The debate was taped for broadcast by TVW and the Seattle Channel and will be shown throughout Washington State and those parts of Oregon and Idaho that get Washington stations. Viewers can see for themselves what happened. (Meanwhile, we will soon put an audio version up on our website.)

If it achieves nothing else, the Ward-Meyer encounter will demonstrate that efforts to misrepresent ID based on supposed motives, funding sources, or political and religious implications cannot substitute for scientific debate. Darwinist critics of ID like Ward evidently don't bother to study the work of ID scientists, so in a debate they are left parroting stereotypes that they have read from the likes of Barbara Forrest. That's about all they know, it seems. They make charges of religious motives, but they are the ones talking about religion. (Out in front of Town Hall, a booth was set up to sell books attacking ID and promoting such great works as "Atheism: the Case Against God.") After constantly trying to answer Meyer's scientific arguments with aspersions on his personal faith, Ward was asked about his own religion. He dodged and dodged and finally quipped, "This week I think I'm a Druid." Right. Still, Ward did denounce Richard Dawkins for his emphasis on Darwinism as an argument for atheism.


Peter Ward and admirers

Ward talked about his former UW colleague, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez in highly favorable terms in respect to his ability and record as a scientist, but then spoiled his own image by misstating the name of the book co-authored by Gonzalez, “The Privileged Planet” ("The Perfect Planet", Ward called it) and labeling it "Crap, trash." No reasons, no argument, just spite. It doesn't come off well. Ward is known as a fine teacher who is gracious and reasonable in person. Intermittently, he tries to convey that on stage. Unfortunately, he presents a very mixed message.

Ape protests, “I don’t want to evolve.” (No danger, pal.)

Disagreeing strongly with Meyer about whether the Cambrian Explosion makes a case against Darwin's theory, Ward pleasantly invited Meyer to appear at his UW class next month when the topic is discussed. But if there is no debate and ID isn't science, why bother? If ID, as he argued last night, hurts the prospects of America developing new scientists (rather than stimulating such development, as Meyer says), then why have an ID proponent in your classroom? Why, indeed, show up at a public debate?

Meyer greets his fans

But I hope that Peter Ward confirms his invitation for Steve Meyer to come to his class. Let the debate continue. The students will love it. Some may decide that science could offer a more fascinating career than they’d imagined.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 3:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last night, the Seattle Times Talk of the Times at Town Hall Seattle featured a debate over evolution and intelligent design between CSC Director Stephen Meyer and US paleontologist Peter Ward. The event was sold out with 800+ in attendance for what turned out to be a really good debate.

David Postman of the Seattle Times did a fine job as the moderator of the debate. If you saw my post yesterday about Postman’s front page article in yesterday’s Times you know that I had some misgivings about his being the moderator. However, I have to congratulate him for his objectivity and balance, and his overall good job in keeping the debate both substantive and enlightening.

I especially appreciated the way he opened with the definitional question: what is intelligent design? Because his definition in yesterday’s paper inadequately described intelligent design, I think that this was a very good way to get the discussion started.

In speaking with many people afterwards –including both ardent ID supporters and staunch Darwinists-- it was obvious to everyone that Meyer clearly prevailed. Both debaters were engaging, but everyone I spoke with found Meyer to be more substantive and thoughtful with his answers. Meyer above all successfully showed that there is a debate about evolution and intelligent design and he showed that it is based on science, regardless of ancillary (and academically irrelevant) political or religious implications on both sides.

The debate last night was almost ALL about science--from gene sequencing, to nanotechnology, to the Cambrian explosion, to the philosophy of science that decides how to define the terms in the first place. Both scientists are experts in their fields and the audience was eager to hear what they had to say. No matter how much Darwinists claim there is no debate, and that intelligent design somehow kills curiousity, you can't argue with hundreds of people showing up to eagerly hear what both sides have to say about the issue. Clearly they were curious about the debate that doesn’t exist.

TVW and Seattle Channel both filmed the debate and over the next few weeks it will be broadcast statewide, and even into parts of Oregon and Idaho. So, residents of the Northwest will have a great chance to view the debate for themselves. We will find out when the debate is scheduled to air and post those times in our event listings on Discovery's main page, www.discovery.org.

Below is an excellent blow-by-blow account of the debate submitted by a Discovery colleague who attended and took careful notes.

Intelligent Design vs Evolution, Town Hall Seattle, Wednesday, April 26, 2006

A packed house at Seattle's Town Hall saw Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute debate Dr. Peter Ward of the University of Washington on the topic of "Intelligent Design v. Evolution." Meyer was excellent in his overall presentation. In my view, Meyer convincingly prevailed.

The two had previously debated for over an hour on a local Seattle radio program. That radio debate was a rather lopsided exchange, with Meyer clearly outshining Ward. Meyer made clear and reasonable arguments about the theory of intelligent design (ID) from scientific data, whereas Ward had offered little-to-no scientific response. Instead, Ward simply attacked Meyer's personal motives and made wild claims that students learning about the theory of intelligent design would somehow result in scientific decline and an undermining of our national security.

Back to Town Hall. This time Ward did not rely so thorougly rely upon wild claims about the theory of ID being the death of science itself. But attacks of that sort still seemed to be the mainstay of his arguments. He claimed that if students were to learn about the theory of intelligent design that the United States would fall behind in science and technology to China, Japan and other nations. Allowing the teaching of the theory of ID would lead to "intellectual mediocrity" in America, he stated. (To a large number of boos from the audience, I might add.)

Ward, in fact, asserted that ID is not a theory at all. He claimed it wasn't science because science excludes the supernatural. Ward also repeatedly asked Meyer why he used the terms "neo-Darwinian" or "Darwinist." At a later point in the debate, Ward claimed that ID proponents used those terms as a caricature to knock down. He also insisted that ID was neither testable nor falsifiable.

Specifically, Ward challenged Meyer to explain how the theory of ID could be tested or falsified. Meyer stated that the competing explanations of Drs. Michael Behe and Kenneth Miller concerning the bacteria flagellum and Type III Secretory Systems is something that could be tested to determine which one came first. Meyer countered that neo-Darwinian evolution had been heuristically unfruitful in leading science to think that non-encoding DNA was simply "junk." Meyer insisted that design assumptions more readily led one to conclude there was purpose in such "junk DNA." And he also cited Dr. Jonathan Wells' hypothesis concerning centrioles and its implications for cancer as research inspired by a design theoretic.

Furthermore, Meyer cited a recent article in Science purporting to "refute" Behe's ideas concerning irreducible complexity. Meyer insisted that he and Behe and others disputed the weak claims to have refuted irreducible complexity, but that the important fact was that the scientists were taking the idea seriously enough to try to combat it through scientific research and argument.

Meyer held his own against Ward, and then some. At the outset he defined the theory of ID as holding that certain aspects of the universe and of living systems are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected cause. He also made clear that the theory of ID is not necessarily antithetical to "evolution." Meyer proceeded to delineate three different definitions of "evolution," to which he would occasionally refer back to throughout the evening: 1) "evolution" as "change over time"; 2) "evolution" as "common ancestry" or "universal common ancestry" of all biological life; and 3) "evolution" as natural selection acting upon purposeless or unguided processes such as random mutation. Along these lines, Meyer also made clear that the theory of ID is not merely a negative argument against the creative powers of neo-Darwinian evolution. The theory of ID, in its positive aspects, is simply the inference to the best explanation of observable data based upon our general knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships that we experience on a daily basis. (He went back to this many times for reinforcement.)

Meyer spoke at some length about the digital code contained in DNA. He described how, in our everyday experience, we attributed software code to software designers. Meyer likewise pointed to intricate molecular machinery and nanotechnology found in living systems. He then cited Richard Dawkin's dictum about biology being the study of living things that gave the appearance of being designed for a purpose. Meyer insisted that he took the opposite view of Dawkins, in that living systems appear designed because they really are designed.

The earlier part of the debate also included some debate over the fossil record. Ward adamantly asserted that the "missing links" some had speculated were non-existent after studying the Burgess Shale had been uncovered in China. Meyer challenged him on this point. Ward kept cutting Meyer off, saying "trust me." Meyer cited to J.Y. Chen as a scientist familiar with those same fossils who concluded that Darwin's tree of life is not the picture of the history of life on earth. In reality, it is upside down. Meyer even managed to fit in that choice quote from Chen about how in China one can criticize Darwin but not the goverment, but that in American one can criticize the government but not Darwin. (A lot of applause on that one.)

Debate also turned to whether scientific curiosity would by stymied if students ever learned about the theory of ID. Ward, obviously, contended that people would give up on science and lose curiosity in the study of nature if students thought that living systems were designed. Meyer cited the fact that so many people attended the debate as a sign that curiosity is raised by controversies. Meyer got to briefly discuss the "teach the controversy" approach in public school science education.

Ward’s supporters in the audience didn't take to Meyer's statement that peer-review science journals are largely controlled by Darwinists. Meyer cited the fallout from the publication of his own article in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and all that was done to the editor who published it. Ward said he read that article, but he jumped on the peer review issue quite a bit. Ward insisted that there were millions of papers in the literature supporting evolution, but almost none supporting the theory of ID, and none offering detailed explanations about how living systems are designed.

In terms of substantive arguments about science and philosophy of science, Meyer certainly surpassed Ward. He was better spoken and the most articulate. Ward's strength, however, came in his laid-back, casual attitude. Ward made a lot of jokes and wise cracks. (Meyer displayed good humor, as well.) Ward came across as someone who would probably make for an entertaining professor. However, on many occasions his jokes were simply flippant dismissals of Meyer's arguments and of the theory of ID, in general. Attitude can sometimes make up for lack of substance in a debate, and to some degree that was the case here.

Perhaps the most galling thing Ward said was in response to a question about his views of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez's work in formulating ID in cosmology. Ward said that Gonzalez did some good science concerning the birth of stars. But he just insulted Gonzalez's book, The Privileged Planet, co-authored with Dr. Jay Richards. If I got the quote correctly, Ward simply said: "His book's a bunch of crap. It's trash." Ward had initially called the book "The Perfect Planet," before being corrected.

That was particularly galling to me. I read Ward’s book “Rare Earth” and enjoyed it. That Ward couldn't get the title of Gonzalez's book straight simply showed his contempt for it.

In contrast, Ward mentioned some reading he did like. He cited and read from Judge Jones's awful anti-ID opinion from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board. If I got his quote right, Ward described it as "an intersting bit of reading that I think every American ought to read." He read from a portion of the opinion where Judge Jones wrote that the Dover Area School Board members were lying. Ward waved the opinion around as an authoritative source on the matter. (See DI's newly published response to Judge Jones, Traipsing Into Evolution.)

Meyer shot back effectively that science isn't decided simply by a judge in central Pennsylvania.

The issue of personal, religious beliefs and the influence that might have on the respective debaters viewpoints came up. Meyer acknowledged that he was a Christian and that his outlook probably made him more open to more explanations about reality and the natural world than philosophical materialists. Meyer insisted that scientists should decide things based upon evidence, rather than by motive-mongering. Ward, by contrast, would not answer about his own views. He stated he thought Dawkins was foolish for using evolution to carry the banner for atheism, since there were many devoutly religious scientists who accept evolution. Ward claimed that science and religion are in completely separate hemispheres, far apart from one another.

Overall, I think the debate went very well for Meyer and for the theory of ID.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Tonight, Seattle Times reporter David Postman will moderate a debate over intelligent design and evolution between CSC Director Stephen Meyer and UW Paleontologist Peter Ward. If Postman's article in the Times today is any guide, Meyer has his work cut out for him trying to correct and educate the moderator, as well as having to refute the typical mischaracterizations and misplaced attacks he'll likely hear from Ward.

The fact is that Postman came in to our offices and spent a fair amount of time interviewing Bruce Chapman, and separately going over the science of intelligent design (which is virtually ignored in Postman's piece -- funny for a discussion about a science issue) with Meyer.

Yet his piece is full of errors of fact.

"Intelligent design argues that life is so biologically complex, there must be some kind of supernatural designer involved. The concept, however, leaves the designer unnamed."

The first mistake is his definition which says that ID is just an argument from ignorance, in other words ID scientists are not arguing that things must be designed because we don't know how else it could have happened, but rather that the scientific evidence, the data, bears all the hallmarks of intelligent agency. We made this very clear to Postman and I'm bewildered as to why he persists in believing this caricature of his is what we are arguing, when it clearly is not. Unfortunately, he's not alone, we've reported extensively about the problems some reporters have in accurately defining intelligent design.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things – such as the digital code in DNA and the molecular machines in cells— are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. When defining intelligent design many reporters leave out the important first half of that definition and focus on the secondary clause at the end -- a very annoying mistake that makes a big difference.

The second mistake Postman makes is claiming that ID proponents are pointing to a "supernatural" designer. This has been repeatedly refuted on our website, in our articles, and most recently in our own "stinging rebuke" to Judge Jones' Dover decision, "Traipsing Into Evolution." Intelligent deisgn scientists do NOT claim that the designer is supernatural, the empirical evidence --digital code in DNA for instance-- can't tell you that. What it can show is that that it has all the informational characteristics we find in objects we know were designed. Scientists like Michael Behe are using what they do know to show that there is evidence in the natural world that an intelligent agent had some role in bringing it about.

It isn't just the theory of intelligent design that Postman has trouble getting straight, it is the facts of what is going on in the public policy debate. He writes that:

"an effort in Ohio to include intelligent design in school curricula failed when some state school-board members said the Dover case settled the issue."

Postman also reports on what others are saying about intelligent design, such as Rush Limbaugh: "Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals." But, he opted not to include our response that this is simply not true. It isn't true when Darwinists say it, and it's still untrue when conservatives say it. We're not pushing ID into the curriculum, and ID is not a way to sneak creationism into public schools.

Postman seems a bit preoccupied with religion, and with ID scientists' personal religious beliefs.
"Leading Discovery Institute fellows also are clear they think God is the designer," he reports. This may be an interesting point, but it is irrelevant to whether or not there is a tiny molecular machine in some cells that has a proton motive force drive system, spins at tens of thousands of rpm, switches direction in a quarter turn, and even repairs itself. That's what we're talking about, and what ID scientists are researching.

We've explained how such motive mongering really is out of bounds. Does it matter what a scientist's personal beliefs are when doing laboratory experiments? No. Regardless, rather than be coy or disingenuous, ID scientists have been very upfront about their personal beliefs, which we've explained repeatedly.

Disovery's Casey Luskin develeoped an interesting analogy explaining what he calls the Darwinist Misinformation Train.

Point A represents the actual nature of intelligent design theory, where ID respects the limits of scientific inquiry and cannot identify the designer. At point A, ID relies upon the scientific method and makes no faith-based appeals to God. Here, it is pure science.

Point B represents where Darwinists would like to take ID theory: where it is an explicit appeal to the supernatural, and thus does not respect the inherent limitations of the scientific method. At point B, ID would have a clearly religious component as it identifies the designer as God. This would make it both unscientific and unconstitutional. Point B is fiction, because, of course, ID respects science and is ultra clear that the theory cannot identify the designer and avoids such religious claims.

"The moral of this story is that you can’t go from Point A to Point B by going in opposite directions. Darwinists can’t criticize ID on the one-hand because [as they claim] it does identify the designer as supernatural, and then on the other-hand because it doesn’t, and then both claim that ID isn’t science. For those interested, the truth is that ID theory does not identify the designer, doesn’t even focus on studying the designer. While ID proponents may have beliefs about the designer, those beliefs are not derived from ID theory."

Let's hope that Postman is just a passenger on the Misinformation Train and not its driver. Tonight Dr. Meyer will stop the train and give him ample time to get off, and get on the right track.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:36 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When the controversy over Darwinism and intelligent design is debated on university campuses, the deck is usually stacked heavily against proponents of intelligent design. North Carolina State University has shown, however, that the topic can be debated with the fairness and civility that ought to characterize academic discussions. On Thursday, April 20, before a crowd of some 200 people, a biologist and philosopher defended intelligent design, and a biologist and philosopher defended Darwinism.

That debate continued Thursday night at N.C. State University before a crowd of almost 200 people. Sponsored by the NCSU and Wake chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, the debate featured four speakers -- one scientist and one philosopher from both sides of the issue.

Forty years ago, the New Left political philosopher Herbert Marcuse argued that old fashioned liberal education and public discourse was wrong, that tolerance for varying views should be extended only to people on the Left. That stance seems to have won many advocates; author Chris Mooney is one example, and the editorial page editors of The Washington Post are another (on this issue, at least). Fortunately, saner heads prevailed in North Carolina."

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 2:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A post made 2 weeks ago highlighted how in 1981, Constance Holden wrote in Science that emotions, rather than abundant evidence, often rule the field of paleoanthropology and its claims about human evolution. Yesterday, an article by Charles Matthews in the San Jose Mercury News reiterates that same point. Reviewing a book by Ann Gibbons, Matthews notes:

"Gibbons, who reports on human evolution for Science magazine, gives a lucid account of the science involved in finding fossils, establishing how old they are, and ascertaining whether they in fact belong to the ancestors of humankind. She also shows how difficult and sometimes dangerous the work of hunting for 7 million-year-old fossils can be. And that, like most humans, anthropologists are subject to such emotions as ambition and jealousy, especially when they're Indiana Jonesing for the next big find." (Discovering fossils can be difficult and dangerous by Charles Matthews)

The book is said to document the many unfortunate hardships experienced by paleoanthropologists while in the field. While the commitment of paleoanthropologists to their research is admirable, one can only wonder how these hardships would strengthen one's psychological commitment to one's favored view of human evolution. This is especially poignant when one considers that their hypotheses are based upon little evidence:

"We're not talking about complete skeletons but about teeth, the occasional jawbone or skull or thighbone, sometimes on the verge of crumbling into chalky dust.

[...]

'Together, the fossils collected in the 1990s and early 2000s would cover a large desk and would represent a few dozen individuals at least,'' she notes. But too many pieces are still missing from the puzzle -- including fossils of the ancestors of our closest relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas -- to allow for a clear picture of the evolutionary lineage." (Discovering fossils can be difficult and dangerous by Charles Matthews)

This gives pause to ask whether statements we often hear affirming some hypothesis about human evolution are based upon clear evidence. Yet compare Gibbons' findings to what Constance Holden wrote in 1981:

"The field of paleoanthropology naturally excites interest because of our own interest in origins. And, because conclusions of emotional significance to many must be drawn from extremely paltry evidence, it is often difficult to separate the personal from the scientific disputes raging in the field.

[...]

The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man's evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages. Conflicts tend to last longer because it is so difficult to find conclusive evidence to send a theory packing." (Constance Holden, "The Politics of Paleoanthropology," Science, p.737 (August 14, 1981).)

Perhaps very little has changed in the past 25 years.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Legal commentary mentioning the Kitzmiller decision is now starting to appear in legal journals. In the Spring, 2006 issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, one of the most widely circulated law journals, the lead article addresses intelligent design, Kitzmiller, and the establishment clause.

Cristi L. Bowman’s article, “Seeing Government Purpose Through the Objective Observer’s Eyes: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Debates,” is available here.

Most of the article is about establishment clause jurisprudence, and an argument against part of McCreary County v. ACLU. Bowman argues that the government purpose prong of the Lemon test should return to focusing on “actual intent,” rather than trying to evaluate government purpose with an “objective observer.” Kitzmiller and the evolution-intelligent design controversy serve as the article’s setting for how the objective observer standard will play out in future establishment clause cases.

The article’s argument against expanding the use of an objective observer points out the convoluted status of establishment clause jurisprudence. The Lemon test is virtually impossible to apply consistently, particularly when the courts attempt to evaluate government purpose. One can only hope that the Supreme Court may revisit this and other aspects of establishment clause law in the near future.

Part’s III and IV of the article focus on the establishment clause argument. Part II reviews the evolution-intelligent design controversy. While Bowman presents a fairly accurate picture of the dispute, the article fails to accurately represent intelligent design. Ultimately, the mis-portrayals of intelligent design do not undermine the article’s main point, but are worth noting and rebutting.

Bowman argues that the objective observer standard for determing purpose in the McCreary County case should not be used for government purpose analysis, but rather that courts should use an "actual government" purpose standard. Because the Kitzmiller ruling looked to actual government purpose, focusing on private statements from individual school board members and assessing their personal religious motivations, the decision went beyond the McCreary County standard to look at the specific, subjective intent of the Dover school board members. Bowman believes that the method used in Kitzmiller--delving deep to find actual purpose--is better than the objective observer standard set out in McCreary County.

While many supporters of intelligent design share Bowman’s skepticism of the objective observer as used in government purpose analysis, Bowman’s article is motivated by a desire to allow religious motivation of ID supporters to be “outed,” which she contends cannot happen if courts follow McCreary County. Bowman believes that Kitzmiller did not strictly follow McCreary County in this regard, making the article a defense, of sorts, for Kitzmiller’s new form of government purpose analysis.

Questionable Treatment of Intelligent Design
To be clear, Bowman presents intelligent design in a more accurate light than many of the critics. For example, she recognizes that “intelligent design advocates’ purpose is nearly always less overtly religious than that of traditional creationists.” (423). Bowman provides an overview of evolution, then creationism, and then intelligent design, thus resisting the common attempt to equate intelligent design with creationism.

Under the evolution overview, Bowman harps on the point that evolution is compatible with religion (citing Kenneth Miller, and the NCSE). Under the creationism overview, Bowman nicely distinguishes between young earth creationism, and old earth creationism. Both overviews cite to primary source literature from proponents of the viewpoint.

The intelligent design overview, by contrast, has lax citation to proponents of the viewpoint, and presents many critiques. For example, Bowman frequently cites to news reports to represent intelligent design arguments, as opposed to actually letting the intelligent design proponents represent their views. (See her footnote 53, p.432, which cites to three newspaper reports to establish the position of “intelligent design proponents.”)

Bowman presents two main intelligent design ideas, both with questionable accuracy. First she presents Behe's irreducible complexity, claiming that it "in a significant sense rekindles the argument presented in 1802 by William Paley." (432). Bowman presents a rough version of Behe's arguments for irreducible complexity. Bowman fails to mention a single irreducibly complex system highlighted in Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, not even Behe's infamous flagellum or blood clotting cascade examples. She does, however represent Behe's book as arguing that "the cell" (in general apparently) is irreducibly complex. Bowman cites page 10 of Darwin's Black Box, which as best as I can determine, is the introductory chapter explaining reccent advances in microbiology, not actually an argument that "the cell" is irreducibly complex. Given this odd citation and inaccurate representations of Behe's book, it seems doubtful that the author has read much of Darwin's Black Box.

Regarding peer-reviewed literature, Bowman notes that ID is “almost entirely absent from peer-reviewed journals.” The footnote here notes only two articles, and refers to Steven Meyer’s article in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington as “the only intelligent design argument published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,” and the that the journal issued a statement saying the article did not receive proper peer review. This clearly under-represents the presence of intelligent design in peer-review literature, (see here for a good list) and is only one article better than Judge Jones flawed treatment of the issue in Kitzmiller. What is more, Bowman accepts the repudiation of Meyer’s article as if it were relevant, failing to nuance the highly political nature of the PBSW’s statement, which was pushed by the NCSE as damage control.

Bowman recognizes William Dembski’s arguments as a second main argument for intelligent design. However, the article representation of Dembski has even more problems than the section representing Behe. The section about Dembski’s “odds based” (Bowman’s words) argument fails to cite Dembski directly. (p.436). Bowman introduces Dembski as “Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor and mathematician William Dembski,” a technically correct statement that seems designed to undermine Dembski’s qualification as a scientific expert, who holds Ph.D’s in both mathematics and philosophy from leading secular universities. The article, perhaps not surprisingly, presented Dembski’s arguments in a very weak, simplified form.

Furthermore, throughout the overview of intelligent design, Bowman makes a surprising number of unsupported claims that can only leave the law review reader accustomed to careful citation puzzled. For example, “Aside from Behe, Dembski and a few others, [cites Discovery.org] most of intelligent design’s visible proponents are not scientists or even academics.” (p.436). Bowman provides no citation at all for which “visible proponents” are not scientists. Earlier, Bowman claims that intelligent design proponents see “evolution’s silence about divinity is viewed as hostility towards religion.” (434). This claim is completely unsupported, and ends with a curious citation where Bowman reveals that she considers herself to be an evolutionary theist. Finally, Bowman claims that “many of intelligent design’s strongest proponents are fundamentalist Christians.” (438). She provides no definition for “fundamentalist” and gives no citation whatsoever for this claim, leaving it as a bare assertion. These are all claims made against intelligent design that must, at minimum, be supported under standard law review protocol.

Conclusion
The article does not accurately present intelligent design. It does a fair job generally representing intelligent design, and certainly is more accurate than many of the arguments made by critics of intelligent design. This misrepresentation of intelligent design, however, has very little effect on her main argument. The unfair treatment of intelligent design is unfortunate, but the article, in the end, has more to do with establishment clause case law and less to do with critiquing intelligent design.

Bowman’s call to eliminate the objective observer standard from McCreary County from the first prong of Lemon does not depend on the specifics of the intelligent design controversy. Ultimately, Bowman makes it clear that she views the religious views of intelligent design supporters to be highly relevant for establishment clause purposes. Yet she fails to consider what might happen to the teaching of evolution if the anti-religious motives of many of its leading supporters were equally scrutinized in the courtroom. (Anti-religious motivations of many leading proponents of Darwinism are discussed here, and the inappropriate legal double-standard is discussed extensively in Traipsing Into Evolution.)

Even though Bowman believes that Kitzmiller was right to focus on religious motivations of the school board members, the article also demonstrates how unstable and messy the establishment clause jurisprudence has become. This legal argument, defending the extensive probing of religious motivation, would arguably make the law more hostile to intelligent design. However, the article can also be read as a valid commentary on the convoluted and confused state of establishment clause case law.

Posted by Michael Francisco at 1:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Darwinists claim that their theory is the foundation of all science. Indeed, we are often told that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of it.

In a news article last November, a Stanford biologist claimed he had been guided in his research by Darwinian evolution:

"Researchers at the School of Medicine uncovered obestatin [an appetite-suppressing hormone] by using the principles of evolution to pick clues from data held in the Human Genome Project, as well as the genome sequencing projects for many other organisms, among them yeast, fruit flies and mice. 'Darwin led us to this new hormone,' said senior author Aaron Hsueh, an endocrinologist and professor of obstetrics and gynecology."

"So why does Darwin's theory deserve some credit? Hsueh explained that before he and his colleagues started the project, they used the genome projects' information to create a database of GPCRs that grouped them according to their evolutionary relatedness."

"The discovery of amidated obestatin and its cognate receptor underscores the power of comparative genomic analyses." The article's only reference to evolution was a speculation that two of the molecules studied "could have evolved from a common ancestor but diverged in their functions."

Last year, Dr. Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University and a member of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, wrote in The Scientist that he

"examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."

Here are two brief excerpts from Wells's book, due out later this year:

"Bruce Alberts claims that Darwinism is 'at the core of genetics.' Yet Mendel had no need for Darwin's hypothesis. How can Darwinism, which contributed nothing to the origin of genetics and resisted it for half a century, now be at its core? It is Darwinism that needs genetics, not genetics that needs Darwinism."

"Darwinists sometimes claim that their theory helps us to understand which animals are most closely related… on the basis of their genetic and biochemical similarities. But this is just comparative biology at the level of genes and proteins. Linnaeus did comparative biology, yet he was a creationist who lived a century before Darwin; Owen and Agassiz did comparative biology, yet they rejected Darwin's theory."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 6:31 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The contention that biochemist Michael Behe's intelligent design argument of "irreducible complexity" (IC) is not science was undercut in a recent issue of Science magazine which contains a paper purporting to falsify the theory.

If it's not science, why bother to try to falsify it? Further, the hapless case made against Behe’s theory--as Dr. Behe explains in his detailed response--shows that irreducible complexity is also good science.

Unintentionally, this paper in Science puts the lie to the whole line used in the Dover trial against Behe and his theory of irreducible complexity. It will be interesting to see whether Science lets Behe reply to the Thornton paper in its pages.

If you can't find it in Science, you can read it elsewhere. Here's a page with links to several articles about irreducible complexity.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 9:20 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After scientist and science writer Forrest Mims described University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka's speech to the Texas Academy of Science in which he expressed a longing for an ebola virus to wipe out 90 percent of the world's population, Pianka's defenders quickly went on the attack, claiming that Mims had wantonly misrepresented Pianka. But several lines of evidence suggest that Mims described Pianka's speech quite accurately.

James Redford provides an excellent one-stop post of these various lines of evidence here. William Dembski reports on a UT professor corroborating Mims' account, as does Richard Pearcey here. Our original posts on the subject are here and here.

The real news story in this case isn't that a lone scientist, Pianka, expressed such alarming views. The academic establishment has had more than its share of Pianka's sort for years. The frightening thing is that he was apparently given a standing ovation for his holocaust dream by numerous members of the Texas Academy of Science, who even voted him the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.

Meanwhile, tax dollars from Texas and the rest of the United States continue to fund Pianka's UT position while scientists who argue that design is detectable in the natural world are judged anathema by the academic establishment supported by these tax dollars. This is a curious situation. At least 90 percent of the voters and taxpayers of our country find Pianka's views not only repugnant but dangerous. But they are made to subsidize the views of Pianka and the entire American-hating, humanity-loathing radical left that currently has a stranglehold on most of the top public universities in our country. Moreover, fully 90 percent of our voters and taxpayers find obvious the idea that nature provides clear indicators of design, and yet they are made to subsidize the same academic establishment that deems such a view unacceptable among their scientists.

Is this 90 percent majority really so powerless that it cannot reform the situation? I suspect that Pianka, at least, knows better, and dreams at night that something will come along and make this 90 percent of the population disappear.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 9:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Stephen Heller has an article at the Design Forum looking at semantics and asking who it is that owns the term intelligent design. It's an issue that has a lot of relevance for Heller's audience since they are all graphic designers. Design Forum is a part of the website of the AIGA, -- American Institute of Graphic Arts. In Heller's world "intelligent design" has a much different meaning than in my world. His concern seems to be that the phrase has different meaning for some people than it does for him and his colleagues.

When I hear a graphic designer comment on intelligent design I know that most likely he's talking about a graphic image of some sort. Or, these days, making a bad play on words. Of course, this is why we have context.

Heller is mistaken on many levels. Of course no one owns the phrase intelligent design. One might ask: Who owns left-wing? Democrats or hockey players?

No one has ever tried to claim ownership of the phrase 'intelligent design.' It is simply the best way to explain the concept, which Heller actually does better than most reporters I deal with, explaining it as the idea "that life developed from deliberate natural design (perhaps from a higher being) rather than from random natural selection."

Heller's first mistake is within the realm of his own supposed area of expertise, marketing. He attributes the slogan "capitalist tool" to Fortune magazine, when in reality it was Steve Forbes (whom Fortune exists to compete with) who championed the term as a marketing slogan and personal catch phrase. I know because he gave me a nice, silk tie with the phrase printed all over it when he spoke at a Discovery event in 1996. I should wear it more often.

Still, as a product of today's MSM misinformation juggernaut Heller might be excused for his second mistake: being wrong about where the term 'intelligent design' came from. The term was not a reaction to court cases of the 1980s, anymore than the scientific theory it labels is simply a reaction to such legal rulings. It's absurd to think so, but Darwinists employ a clever PR scheme to convince the media, and ultimately the public, otherwise.

Jonathan Witt has an excellent essay, "On the Origins of Intelligent Design" which clearly explains the term and how it came to its present day usage. Witt writes,

"In reality, the idea of intelligent design reaches back to Socrates and Plato, and the term “intelligent design” as an alternative to blind evolution was used as early as 1897."

"'Intelligent Design, if separated from any right-wing agenda,' says branding expert Brian Collins, 'could be a straightforward term for anyone who seeks proof that the unifying patterns of existence may be connected to a broader intelligence at work in the universe. Fair enough.'

Posted by Robert Crowther at 6:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Washington, DC -- Today, I participated in a panel discussion on intelligent design with the Reverend Barry Lynn at the University of Maryland’s Knight Center for Specialized Journalism. In the audience were reporters from newsmedia around the United States including the New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune and many others, as well as some international journalists, who asked questions of myself and Mr. Lynn.

The “panel discussion” (do two participants make a “debate” or a “panel”?) was fun and there were many good questions from the reporters. During my opening comments, my primary points were that intelligent design is often described inaccurately by the media, who mischaracterize it by saying that “life is so complex that it couldn’t have evolved, therefore God / higher power / supernatural creator made it.” I explained that this definition is wrong because ID isn’t a negative argument against evolution, and doesn’t try to address religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer (a point well-established in the writings of design proponents). My other objective was to help reporters understand the scientific evidence for intelligent design—such as the encoded information in DNA, the information processing capabilities of the cell, and the molecular machines common in microbiology.

Barry Lynn had some arguments against intelligent design—incredible ones at that. I'll highlight a few of them.

Lynn started his talk saying that he didn’t have a powerpoint, but he did have a stuffed monkey. During the discussion, Barry’s primary point against intelligent design was that it is "fog soup" or that it just is too “fuzzy” or isn't common sense enough to be legitimate science. I think that’s an odd comment because two evolutionist leaders in the scientific community have implied that the default common sense position is design, and that they have to work hard to convince themselves otherwise in favor of evolution:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
(Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker, pg. 6 (1986))

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.“
(Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, pg. 138 (1990)

Lynn also stated that perhaps the eye evolved because originally it wasn’t for seeing, but because it made us beautiful—via sexual selection. Posing this hopeful monster hypothesis, he then claimed that design proponents ignore this mode of evolution. I’ll forgive Barry because he isn’t a scientist—but how, pray tell, did organisms without eyes ever see to find organisms with these more attractive eyes? Looks like that argument is not gonna work.

But if we take Barry's objection slightly seriously, it shows how bankrupt co-option arguments are: structures such as the eye (or the flagellar motor, etc.) are far too complex to evolve simply via lucky accidents of pre-adaptation or co-option. Darwin's theory has broken down. Moreover, what of Barry's claim that design proponents don't take into account co-option? Printed in front of Barry on the table was Judge Jones's decision, which he apparently brought with him. Perhaps Barry was duped by Judge Jones's false claim that ID proponents ignore exaptation.

Back to the "eye evolved for sexual selection" argument: Perhaps we just felt one-another’s attractive eyes using our fingers despite the fact we couldn't see them. I don't know--but this wasn’t Barry’s only sex-based argument. In a bizarre comment I honestly couldn't follow, he said something about how we wouldn’t think a porn doll at a porn shop implied supernatural design. I’m not sure if others knew precisely what he was arguing (maybe he just wanted to get a laugh), but I'll try to extract something from it: "Porn dolls" don’t imply supernatural design—they are designed by intelligence—and if anything, this coarse example shows that when we find a designed object, we don’t have to imply a supernatural cause to detect design. And if a doll implies design, what of a living human being? But my main question is, "Why were so many of Barry Lynn's arguments orbiting sex?"

All in all, it was a fun “panel” discussion. I was glad to have the opportunity to convey that ID is not a faith-based argument, and that it is a legitimate, testable scientific theory which has garnished the support of a minority of scientists who are nonetheless participating in scientific conferences, and doing and publishing research.

Barry ridiculed ID as too "fuzzy". I guess that scientist Sir Isaac Newton just was postulating "fog soup" or had no common sense when he claimed "this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

[edited for type-o's and a cooler title --Casey]

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Alan Leshner, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is describing the proposed Academic Freedom Act in Oklahoma as "code language ... to promote a narrow religious agenda." Lawrence Selden responds:

So I raise this question: Is "encourag[ing] critical thinking by exposing students to all sides of the scientific debate about evolution" really just "code language" for "promot[ing] a narrow religious agenda"? It seems to me that looking at the alleged "code language" that is being "injected" into Oklahoma law is the best way to decide.

Selden's full response is here.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 11:25 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A furious debate is stirring over at Cartago Delenda Est. The issue? How many Darwinists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Charles Darwin: None. But if it could be shown that the bulb entered the socket without a series of clockwise turns, my theory would absolutely break down.

ACLU: None! We have separation of church and state in this country.

Eugenie Scott: None. To say a Darwinist did it is not a scientific explanation.

Panda’s Thumb: None. To say that light bulbs don’t screw themselves in is not a testable proposition. You can’t prove they don’t. That would be an argument from incredulity. You are committing a ‘Darwinist Of The Gaps’ fallacy.

Generic 2: None. The quintessentially non-random process of natural selection is sufficient. Those objects capable of giving off light when screwed into sockets will be in sockets. Those that aren’t will be in the trash.

Richard Dawkins: None. A light bulb that gives off 1% light intensity is very much worth having. A bulb sitting on the shelf at the supermarket gives off a certain amount of light. One in the cupboard at home gives off more. One five feet from the socket gives off more, and one two feet away even more. One in the socket gives off the most of all. It is therefore inevitable that the bulb will reach the socket.

Stephen J. Gould: None. The bulb jumped into the socket when no one was looking. Gradually.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 8:31 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

(Part II, Version 1.0)

By Casey Luskin
Copyright © 2006 Casey Luskin. All Rights Reserved.

The entire article can be read here

...Yesterday, I posted Part I of this response. To reiterate, there are three primary problems with Judge Jones's ruling that Ken Miller refuted Michael Behe's arguments that the bacterial flagellum is irreducible complex:

(A) Experts say the evidence suggests that the TTSS evolved from the flagellum, and not the other way around.

(B) Behe and other ID-proponents have long-acknowledged “exaptation” or “co-option” as an attempt to evolve biological complexity, and have observed many problems with “co-option” explanations.

(C) Miller has inaccurately characterized how one tests for irreducible complexity, thus refuting only a straw-version of Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity.

Yesterday I posted sections addressing parts (A) and (B). Today I will continue with the response, expanding on Part (C):

(C) Miller’s Incorrect Characterization of Irreducible Complexity

To repeat Miller’s assertion, he testified that irreducible complexity is refuted if one sub-system can perform some other function in the cell:

“Dr. Behe's prediction is that the parts of any irreducibly complex system should have no useful function. Therefore, we ought to be able to take the bacterial flagellum, for example, break its parts down, and discover that none of the parts are good for anything except when we're all assembled in a flagellum.” (Dr. Kenneth Miller Testimony, Day 1, PM Session, page 16.)

The question becomes, “how is Behe’s argument different from that of Ken Miller?” Behe actually formulates irreducible complexity as a test of building an entire system. IC operates on a collection of parts, not each individual part. Even if a separate function could be found for a sub-system, the latter would not refute the irreducible complexity and the unevolvability of the system as a whole. To repeat Behe’s definition, Behe writes:

“In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:

'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.'

A system which meets Darwin's criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 39 (Free Press, 1996).)

Thus, according to Darwin, evolution requires that a system, or its sub-parts, be functional along each small step of their evolution to the final system. Yet one could find a sub-part that could be useful outside of the final system, and yet the total system would still face many points along an "evolutionary pathway" where it could not remain functional along "numerous, successive, slight modifications" that would be necessary for its gradual evolution. (With regards to the flagellum at least 2/3 of the parts are not known to be shared with any other structure therefore might not be even a sub-part of another system at all.) (*** Note: this footnoted statement has been changed in the official version to reflect newly learned information. See below for details.)

Thus, Miller mischaracterizes Behe's argument as one which focuses on the non-functionality of sub-parts, when in fact, Behe’s argument actually focuses on the ability of the entire system to assemble, even if sub-parts can have functions outside of the final system.

A Car Example for Illustration
To understand how Miller's test fails to accurately apply to Behe's formulation of irreducible complexity, consider the example of a car engine and a bolt. Car engines use various kinds of bolts, and a bolt could be seen as a small “sub-part” or “sub-system” of a car engine. Under Miller's logic, if a vital bolt in my car's engine might also to perform some other function—perhaps as a lugnut--then it follows that my car's whole engine system is not irreducibly complex. Such an argument is obviously fallacious.

In assessing whether an engine is irreducibly complex, one must focus on the function of the engine itself, not on the possible function of some sub-part that may operate elsewhere. Of course a bolt out of my engine could serve some other purpose in my car. However this observation does not explain how many complex parts such as pistons, cylinders, the camshaft, valves, the crankshaft, sparkplugs, the distributor cap, and wiring came together in the appropriate configuration to make a functional car engine. Even if all of these parts could perform some other function in the car (which is doubtful), how were these parts assembled properly to construct a functional engine? The answer requires intelligent design.

Behe asserts that a system is irreducibly complex if the system stops functioning upon the removal of one part. This is the appropriate test of Darwin’s theory because it asks the question, “Is there a minimal level of complexity which is required for functionality of this system?” Clearly my car’s engine has a core set of parts necessary in order for it to function. The ability of an engine bolt to also serve as a lugnut does not refute the irreducibly complex arrangement of parts necessary to make the final engine-system functional. Behe never suggests that subsystems cannot play some other role in the cell—in fact he suggests the opposite. Rather, Behe simply argues that evolution requires that the total system must be built up in a slight, step-by-step fashion, where each step is functional.

Miller has mischaracterized irreducible complexity, and his test is a straw-test for refuting irreducible complexity. The test for irreducible complexity does not ask “can one small part of the macrosystem be used to do something else?” as Miller claims, but rather asks “can the system as a whole be built in a step-by-step fashion which does not require any ‘non-slight’ modifications to gain the final target function?” Any non-slight modifications of complexity required to go from functional sub-part(s), operating outside-of-the-final system, to the entire final functional system, represent the irreducible complexity of a system.

Even if Miller could find that every part of the flagellum existed somewhere else in bacteria (which he cannot—he only accounts for the basal body, which constitutes about 1/4 of the total flagellar proteins), Miller is no where close to providing a plausible account of the evolution of the flagellum until he has explained how all the flagellar parts might have come together to produce a functional bacterial flagellum. Only then that Miller claim that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

Other Authorities Agree with Behe
William Dembski captures the essence of the problem with Miller's definition and treatment of IC in Dembski’s expert rebuttal in which Dembski writes:

“[F]inding a subsystem of a functional system that performs some other function is hardly an argument for the original system evolving from that other system. One might just as well say that because the motor of a motorcycle can be used as a blender, therefore the [blender] motor evolved into the motorcycle. Perhaps, but not without intelligent design. Indeed, multipart, tightly integrated functional systems almost invariably contain multipart subsystems that serve some different function. At best the TTSS [Type-III Secretory System] represents one possible step in the indirect Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. But that still wouldn’t constitute a solution to the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. What’s needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis along the way. To claim otherwise is like saying we can travel by foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we’ve discovered the Hawaiian Islands. Evolutionary biology needs to do better than that.” (William A. Dembski, Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses, at http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Rebuttal_Dembski.pdf.)

Though Miller has accounted for the origin of only a fraction of the flagellar parts, Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer also explain how mere availability of parts is insufficient to explain the evolution of a system:

“[E]ven if all the protein parts were somehow available to make a flagellar motor during the evolution of life, the parts would need to be assembled in the correct temporal sequence similar to the way an automobile is assembled in factory. Yet, to choreograph the assembly of the parts of the flagellar motor, present-day bacteria need an elaborate system of genetic instructions as well as many other protein machines to time the expression of those assembly instructions. Arguably, this system is itself irreducibly complex. In any case, the co-option argument tacitly presupposes the need for the very thing it seeks to explain—a functionally interdependent system of proteins.” (Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, Genetic Analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria, pg. 8, at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=389.)

Similarly, philosopher Angus Menuge lays out a number of obstacles which must be overcome by "co-option" or "exaptation" explanations, none of which were addressed by Miller during the trial. Menuge writes:

“For a working flagellum to be built by exaptation, the five following conditions would all have to be met:

“C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function.

“C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time.

“C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.

“C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.

“C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.”

(Angus Menuge, Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004).)

William Dembski takes a similar approach to that of Menuge. Dembski effectively combines some of Menuge’s criteria in order to develop a means of calculating the probability of constructing an irreducibly complex object. In calculating the probability of a “discrete combinatorial object” one must take into account the probability of originating the parts, the probability of localizing the parts all in once place, and the probability of configuring the parts together:

Table 1. Comparison of Dembski and Menuge’s required explanatory components for any exaptation-based account of evolution (Table based upon the descriptions in William A. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence, pg. 291 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002)):

It is clear that Miller has found that the probability for originating about 1/4 of the flagellar proteins might be “1/1” if the TTSS (or perhaps a similar structure) existed prior to the flagellum. However he has not accounted for the origin of the remaining the flagellar proteins, nor has he addressed P_local or P_config in his evolutionary scenario. In light of Menuge's and Dembski’s criteria, it seems fair to demand answers from Miller to the following questions:

- What function was performed by the paddle, rotor, or motor outside of the flagellum? (At trial, Miller explained the function for the basal body of the flagellum via the TTSS, but left the most complex and vital motorized portions of the flagellum unexplained.)
- How did the parts become synchronized in the flagellum? (At trial, Miller never discussed this.)
- How did the parts become localized within the flagellum at the same construction site? (At trial, Miller never addressed this issue.)
- How did the parts become structurally coordinated so as to interact when assembled to produce the flagellar swimming function? (Again, Miller also never addressed this issue at trial.)

Thus Miller never answered any of these important questions at the trial. Rather, he presented a straw version of testing irreducible complexity whereby he convinced the Judge in a fashion which did not come remotely close to accounting for how the flagellum might have actually evolved.

A Final Analogy: The Arch
Miller’s treatment of the bacterial flagellum did not refute its irreducibly complexity, as Miller did not address questions about how the final flagellar systems might arise. The existence of other functions for the TTSS does not imply that the flagellar system would not still require large leaps in complexity (or to use Darwin's words, non-slight modifications) in order to ultimately achieve a functional flagellum. To use a final analogy to show the deficiency of Miller’s explanation, consider an attempt to build an irreducibly complex arch (Figure A):

Figure A: An arch is irreducibly complex: if one removes a piece, the remaining pieces will fall down. (Note: For the purpose of illustration, I am temporarily ignoring the common objection that an irreducibly complex arch might be made using natural erosional processes. I am aware of no appropriate "scaffolding" analogy within the biological realm, but it is not the present purpose of this discussion to rebut that objection.)

According to Miller, if we can find a function for some sub-piece, then a system is not irreducibly complex. Now, let’s now break this arch into sub-pieces:


Figure B: Here an arch has been broken up into subpieces. Similarly, Miller has apparently found a flagellar sub-piece (the TTSS) which can perform some other function. The TTSS comprises no more than 1/4 of the total flagellar parts. Similarly, in this arch, there is one large sub-section (labeled “S”) which comprises approximately 1/4 of the total arch. Sub-section “S” can have a function outside of the arch (i.e. here, it can stand on its own). However, this exposes the fallacy of Miller’s test: the ability of sub-section “S” to stand on its own does not therefore dictate that the arch is not irreducibly complex. Thus if one were to removes the top piece (t), the arch crumbles, even if sub-section “S” can still remain standing (Figure C):

Fig