Behe's latest book

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
By Michael J. Behe
(Free Press, 320 pp., $28)

Behe recommendations

From an email I received:

Here are a couple references on flagellum assembly:Minamino,T. and Namba,K. 2004. Self-assembly and type III protein export of the bacterial flagellum. J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 7:5-17.Macnab,R.M. 2003. How bacteria assemble flagella. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 57:77-100.Kalir,S., McClure,J., Pabbaraju,K., Southward,C., Ronen,M., Leibler,S., Surette,M.G., and Alon,U. 2001. Ordering genes in a flagella pathway by analysis of expression kinetics from living bacteria. Science 292:2080-2083.

He also sent me an excerpt from a book chapter he wrote (Behe,M.J. 2004. Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution. In Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA. (eds. WA Dembski and M Ruse), pp 352-370. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge). It is a response to arguments by Ken Miller regarding the bacterial flagellum.

Finally, rather than showing how their theory could handle the obstacle, some Darwinists are hoping to get around irreducible complexity by verbal tap dancing. At a debate between proponents and opponents of intelligent design sponsored by the American Museum of Natural History in April 2002, Kenneth Miller actually claimed (the transcript is available at the website of the National Center for Science Education) that a mousetrap isn’t irreducibly complex because subsets of a mousetrap, and even each individual part, could still “function” on their own. The holding bar of a mousetrap, Miller observed, could be used as a toothpick, so it still had a “function” outside the mousetrap. Any of the parts of the trap could be used as a paperweight, he continued, so they all had “functions.” And since any object that has mass can be a paperweight, then any part of anything has a function of its own. Presto, there is no such thing as irreducible complexity! Thus the acute problem for gradualism that any child can see in systems like the mousetrap is smoothly explained away.Of course the facile explanation rests on a transparent fallacy, a brazen equivocation. Miller uses the word “function” in two different senses. Recall that the definition of irreducible complexity notes that removal of a part “causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” Without saying so, in his exposition Miller shifts the focus from the separate function of the intact system itself to the question of whether we can find a different use (or “function”) for some of the parts. However, if one removes a part from the mousetrap I pictured, it can no longer catch mice. The system has indeed effectively ceased functioning, so the system is irreducibly complex, just as I had written. What’s more, the functions that Miller glibly assigns to the parts—paperweight, toothpick, key chain, etc.—have little or nothing to do with the function of the system of catching mice (unlike the mousetrap series proposed by John McDonald, discussed below), so they give us no clue as to how the system’s function could arise gradually. Miller explained precisely nothing.With the problem of the mousetrap behind him, Miller moved on to the bacterial flagellum—and again resorted to the same fallacy. If nothing else, one has to admire the breathtaking audacity of verbally trying to turn another severe problem for Darwinism into an advantage. In recent years it has been shown that the bacterial flagellum is an even more sophisticated system than had been thought. Not only does it act as a rotary propulsion device, it also contains within itself an elegant mechanism to transport the proteins that make up the outer portion of the machine, from the inside of the cell to the outside. (Aizawa 1996) Without blinking, Miller asserted that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex because some proteins of the flagellum could be missing and the remainder could still transport proteins, perhaps independently. (Proteins similar—but not identical—to some found in the flagellum occur in the type III secretory system of some bacteria. See Hueck 1998). Again he was equivocating, switching the focus from the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine to the ability of a subset of the system to transport proteins across a membrane. However, taking away the parts of the flagellum certainly destroys the ability of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine, as I have argued. Thus, contra Miller, the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex. What’s more, the function of transporting proteins has as little directly to do with the function of rotary propulsion as a toothpick has to do with a mousetrap. So discovering the supportive function of transporting proteins tells us precisely nothing about how Darwinian processes might have put together a rotary propulsion machine.

Aizawa, S. I. Flagellar 1996. Assembly in Salmonella Typhimurium. Molecular Microbiology 19: 1-5.Hueck, C. J. 1998. Type III Protein Secretion Systems in Bacterial Pathogens of Animals and Plants. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 62: 379-433.

Quick notes on Miller

Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design:

How does a system arise in the first place?

Comparison between eubacteria flagella and Type III secretory appartus.
formal identity versus materal identity
Is materal identity sufficient for formal identity?
Function--> moved to work by presence of object? What is the efficient cause?

The Flagellum Unspun:
Is homology sufficient to show materal identity? Or is this an inference from DNA sequence? (How do we know that protein folding, etc. is the same--resulting in proteins with the same structure and powers?)

Other links:
Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe
Is the Complement System Irreducibly Complex?
Darwin's Black Box
Determing the protein responsible for torque generation in E. coli
The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting

Michael Behe

Evidently Kenneth Miller was at BC to give a talk about 5 months ago; I vaguely remember that, but I decided not to go... maybe because I could tell what direction he was going to go in, even though I don't think I knew that much about his position. Then again, maybe I had read something by him but just forgot.

I got a chance to take a pic with Dr. Behe; I'll post it over at The New Beginning.

The Lady Downstairs was shocked by some of the rather ignorant questions the undergraduates posed. Some were rather combatative, but what else would one expect on a hot-button issue like this? Attendance was good; mostly undergraduates, plus one or two grad students in philosophy, some grad students in theology, Dr. Kreeft, maybe one other faculty member? But no one introducing himself as a member of the biology faculty at B.C. No interest? Or more important things to do?

In his presentation he didn't address the two articles Dr. Miller has over at his website. (But he did publish a response to one of them last year.)

Afterwards, I asked him about his views on the structuralists and he responded that he was not very familiar with them. I tried to characterized structuralism as the search for laws that govern development (and by extension, evolution), and Dr. Behe did not think that it would be ultimately successful, since he believed that the initial conditions already had design "implanted" in them. (I think I got his response down.) He also thought that an algorithm would not be able to capture the information necessary for the system. (Which presupposes that information can be quantifiable, and a certain understanding of information theory. Does he share the same information theory as William Dembski?)

Dr. Behe said that he has another book coming out this year--I'm looking foward to it. In the meantime, I'll e-mail him for an essay he wrote in response to Dr. Miller last year, as well as for some references to flagellum synthesis.

Some reflections
neo-Darwinists (and scientists in general) must avoid the fallacy of affirming the consequent
evolution --> genetic (or structural) similarities
genetic (or structural) similarities
therefore, evolution

At best, one can argue that it is "probable" that evolution took place. But, in order to make this claim (or even the stronger claim that evolution has taken place), one needs to show that possible explanations have been definitively ruled out.

For example, using a variation of Ockham's razor, one could argue that God as creator keeps things as simple as possible, and hence there are genetic (or structural) similarities.

[Now, this may not be falsifiable (a la Popper).]

If it is the case that a-->b, but x-->b or y-->b, then one needs to show ~x and ~y.
For example, if x-->c or y-->c, then if it can be shown ~c, one might conclude from modus tollens that ~x or ~y. But, is it modus tollens necessary the case for physical causality? Is physical causality necessary, or contingent? (Something else could intervene to prevent the effect from coming to be.) Does modus tollens only apply then to logical necessity or something of the sort?

Is it wise to compare a living thing to a machine? After all, a machine is not a substantial unity, while a living thing is. A machine comes to be purely from an external cause--construction is "received" by the parts. On the other hand, when a living thing reproduces or develops, it itself is a causes of this taking place. (Though how this is so needs to be explained well.) Living things, after all, move themselves, and reproduction of single-celled organisms or development of more complex organisms is a form of self-motion.

Kant apparently compares living things to machines; I recall that W. Carroll and S. Baldner criticized Behe precisely on this point.

If development is a natural motion, and is also natural in the sense that it is not conscious or intelligent, is it not the case that there must be intelligence guiding development? Similarly, for the synthesis or generation of parts like the flagellum? Does the substantial form of a thing provide the plan? It seems not, though development proceeds in accordance with the form or with the nature of a thing and is not counter to it (except "incidentally"(?) if there is a defect in the matter?).

A complex part like a flagellum is not generated simply through a single sequence of DNA being transcribed. (Dr. Behe confirmed this for me.) Hence, my interest in the literature. Rather, different genes are involved, and other proteins come into play as well. I will have to look at the details once I get some articles, but it seems like a good example to use to illustrate my point, so I'll wait until then.

In development, what are the initial conditions? (As determined by the constituents that are first present, or specifically by their virtual powers, or "natures" as it were?) While the First Mover is always "at work," what operations of the organism are first, and which are caused by those? What parts act on other parts to get the ball rolling, as it were? (And I'm not thinking of a domino effect, but at any point in time, if there is some motion taking place, the First Mover is present. The First Mover does not simply push the first domino, with each subsequent domino taking care of the rest of the domino effect by itself...)

Behe speaking on Thursday, 21 September

I received this email today:

On THURSDAY
September 21at 7pm
in the Robsham Theatre

MICHAEL BEHE Prof. of biochemistry at Lehigh University and best-selling author of DARWIN'S BLACK BOX will lecture and lead a discussion on THE CASE AGAINST DARWIN (a plea for Freethinking in Biology). All faculty and students--especially true believers in the orthodox Darwinian paradigm--are urged to attend and join in an open, free discussion (the sort of discussion that rarely takes place on this topic). Hoping to see you there.

Ronald K Tacelli sj
Boston College Philosophy Association

I was thinking it would be later in the semester, my copy of his revised edition of Darwin's Black Box has not arrived yet. Ah well, maybe he'll be willing to sign a "book plate." Hrm, I suppose on Wednesday I can print out some objections and read them over.

In the meantime, questions to keep in mind:
(1) Is it possible to show that something has no function? One can show that it does not have a certain function (for example, if a protein "normally" catalyzes a certain reaction, but one alters the protein and the reaction is no longer catalyzed, one would suspect that the protein no longer is able to carry out that function). But can one show that it has no function whatsoever? Perhaps, if one knows the structure and constituents of the protein.

(2) On the other hand, even if it can be shown that a protein missing certain amino acids has some sort of function what is the effect of this protein on that of which it is a part? Does the whole still thrive like it did before?

(3) Then there is the developmental question--if we are talking about complex living things and not simple living things (comprised of a single cell), what is the impact of such a change on the living thing as a whole? And how does a change in protein lead to a macroscopic change? (What is the development pathway?)

I should ask him about structuralism...

Michael Behe coming to B.C.

First lecture for the philosophy undergraduate majors, organized by Fr. Tacelli, S.J.

Should be interesting--I'll try to attend and read up on the responses to Dr. Behe. (And if I have his book, of course I'll ask him to sign it.)

ARN authors page
Lehigh University faculty page
Discovery Institute page