Biochemistry professor says " I used to believe in Darwin's theory because ...
By owens07
@owens07 (325)
Puerto Rico
February 15, 2007 4:30am CST
Michael Behe: I used to believe in Darwin's theory because I was taught it in high school and college. I'm now a biochemst, and when you study biochemistry you study very complicated molecular systems that are the basis of the cell and the foundation of life. Many times I would wonder how something that complicated could have evolved by a step by step Darwinian process. But I tried to shrug off the doubts.
In the late 1980's, when I was an associte professor of biochemistry, I read the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by a geneticist, Micahael Denton. And in it, Denton presented a number of arguments against the Darwinian theory that I thought were good arguments and that I had never heard of before, I became angry because here I was a professor of science at a leading university and had never heard these criticisms, let alone how to answer them. I became angry because I had been led to believe in the Darwinian theory, not because the evidence was compelling, but because that's what I was expected to believe. [sound familiar?]
After reading Denton's book, I decided to go to the science libary and look at the science journals to see, who had explained the complicated cellular systems by a Darwinian process. I was astounded to find there were no published papers, or none to speak of, that even tried to explain how a step-by-step process could produce such complexity. At that point I figured a new idea was neede and so I started to think about more alternatives.
I think Darwin's idea was a good idea. It looked like it might have a chance when he proposed it... It was a good idea, but it turned out to be incorrect. As science progressed and we learned more about life, we saw inexorably that it was not complexity at the top and simplicity underneath, but it was compexity at the top, and more complexity underneath.
We learned the cell is not a simple blob of jelly, It has these molecular machines in it. It has a sophisticated mechanism that man has not been able to reproduce. And much of it is what I call irreducibly complex, so that if you take one part away from the machine, the machine will break down. Just as you can take a couple of spark plugs from a car and it will not work, things will break down in the cell as well.
These thing haven't been explained by Darwinian theory in any jorunal article, and there's good reason to think, in principle, they can't be explained by Darwinian theory.
I think Darwinism will indeed collaspe. Right now it is being held up simply by social pressure among scientists who view the world in a certain way. But if a significant group of scientists dissents from that view, then Darwinism will have to prove its case - and I don't thik it can prove it.
-Behe
Dr. Michael Behe, author of the 1996 best seller Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Bethelhem, Penssylvania.
After graduating from Drexel University in 1974 with a B.S in chemistr, Dr. Behe did his graduate studies in biochemistry at the University of Pennslyvania and was award his Ph.D in 1978
2 people like this
4 responses
@jricbt (1454)
• Brazil
22 Feb 07
from the wikipedia :
Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations. An "irreducibly complex" system is defined by the term's originator, biochemistry professor Michael Behe, as one "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"[1]. These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. The argument is used in a broader context to support the idea that an intelligent designer was involved, at some point, in the creation of life, against the theory of evolution which argues no designer is required. In a manner of speaking, the IC argument is a definition of the "designer", or at least "what was designed", a definition that has proven elusive in the past. The most common examples used in argument are the complexity of the eye, the blood clotting cascade, or the motor in a cell's flagellum.
The examples offered to support the irreducible complexity argument have generally been found to fail to meet the definition and intermediate precursor states have been identified for several structures purported to exhibit irreducible complexity.[2] For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.[3] This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.[4] Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.[5] Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance. Irreducible complexity is generally dismissed by the majority of the scientific community;[2] it is often referred to as pseudoscience.[6]
Despite being discredited in the Dover trial where the court found in its ruling that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.",[7] irreducible complexity has nevertheless remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design and other creationists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
Boring, when creationists will come up with something new?
@cerium (689)
•
24 Feb 07
jricbt, It's really funny that whatever scientific argument against the theory of evolution is called pseudo-science. And yet you are mentioning the peer reviews? From when was the opinion of the majority the true opinion? This is a totally scientific argument and yet there's no satisfactory explanation from evolutionists. It's easier for them to dismiss the argument rather than trying to refute it.
@jricbt (1454)
• Brazil
3 Mar 07
What can I do Cerium? Inteligent Desing is creationism with a mask. Proponents of ID were never able to come up with ONE single example of something that could not have evolved. They say the eye, scenarios explaining how the eye could have evolved and are presented and what? They deny the explanation, because it do not fit their religious goals.
So, if you or the parrot believe it, good for you. For it to be called science it must meet science standards, what it does not. Don't ask me, go search, I recommend that you read a few sites :
For Theory of Evolution :
www.talkorigins.org and www.wikipedia.org
For Creationism
Any two sites of your liking.
Read and compare, with an open and impartial mind, what are the arguments, how they are build, and what make sense.
And choose. Or Keep your faith, because sorry, but ID is all about Faith. They only lack the courage to call the Designer by the name they believe, God.
2 people like this
@owens07 (325)
• Puerto Rico
25 Feb 07
(with regards to the mousetrap)
Robinson:
Suppose you challenge me to show that a standard mousetrap is not irreducibly complex. You hand me all the parts listed above. I am to set up a functional mousetrap with at least mostly resembles the standard one, except I hand yo one piece. Can it be done? Yep. The wooden base can be discarded. Where do you put a mouse trap? On the floor.
Behe:
That's an interesting reply, but you just substituted another wooden base for the one you were given. The trap can't function without a base. Furthermore, you were essentially given a dissembled mousetrap, which you then assembled. All of the parts where preadapted to each other by an intelligent agent. The point that has to be addressed is, how do you start with no pieces (at least none specifically designed to be part of a mouse trap). and proceed to a functioning, irreducibly complex trap.
(with regards to arguments from ignorance)
He has a Ph. D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania.(received an award from Sigma Xi for Best Thesis), postpoc'd for four years at the National Institutes of Health (as a Jane Coffin Childs Fund postdoctoral fellow) has been an academic biochemist for 14 years, gained tenure at a reasonably rigorous university, has published a fair amount in the biochemical literature and has continuously had his research funded by national agencies (including a five-year Research Career Development Award from the National Institutes of Health) and currently has research funds.
Behe:
Perhaps there are step-by-step, Darwinian explanations in the literature for the complex systems I describe in my book, but if there are, I haven't seen them, nor has anyone brought them to my attention.
My book has been reviewed quite widely, including reviews by academic biochemists. Several of them were quite hostile to my idea of design but all agreed that the systems I described are enormously complex and currently unexplained. The hostile reviewers were confident that the systems would eventually be explained by Darwinism in the future. I do not share their confidence. Neither did James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago who reviewed Darwin's Black Box for National Review. He,too, thinks Darwinism has failed for these systems, but hopes they will be explained by some other non-intelligent mechanism.
I will deal with the other arguments in my next posts.
1 person likes this
@Dano11 (173)
• United States
24 Feb 07
Great topic...
I too learned that old song & dance about evolution, I think there are a couple other factors keeping it in the mainstream. One is the millions of dollars already spent on school books, museums with evolutionary displays, and lots of money invested in other related area's. The other faction keeping it alive is the refusal to look at the alternative. The alternative denotes a creator of some sort which also brings in the question of accountability, and lets face it the world does not want to see this.
I did not go beyond first year college, but eventually I started seeing the problems with evolution, being scientific minded I'm always questioning things, and eventually I started asking the right questions, the ones that evolution could not matter, and in most cases failed entirely.
Chemistry was my favorite subject, although if computer science had been around at a user level as it is today, I probably would have chosen computer science, but back to the point. I've asked one simple question which no evolutionist has ever been able to answer. If evolution did occur, it had to start somewhere, that first cell. In making a living, reproducing first cell, somewhere in a glass of fluid chemicals which only react on an atomic mechanical level which is very predictable in most cases, how did just the right combination of chemical compounds come together, and then suddenly other chemicals form a membrane around this cell to give it life potential with the ability to grow and split into two cells? Even if it did succeed once in a billion trillion chances, what could it eat? Would it even recognize food if it found it? Oh it boggles the mind. Chemicals just do not do this, and no matter what kinds of energy we apply to them, it is scientifically impossible to achieve. In fact, outside of a very basic fundamental mechanical knowledge, we really don't know, I mean really know what life is.
Anyone who gives it an original thought and spends any time comtemplating the complexities of life itself and evolution, has to come to a conclusion that it just could not happen.
Even Darwin himself said, evolution could only occur if the smallest part of the creature, (the cell), is simple in nature. Genetics have blown simplicity out of the picture entirely.
Thank you for the topic.
@jricbt (1454)
• Brazil
3 Mar 07
What you are saying dano11 is an argument from incredulity or ignorance (I can't believe it OR I don't understand how it happened).
See, there are major problems with it. The cells we have today are result of evolution, the first cells, nobody know how they were.
But there are several hypothesis on it, for example (the one I like most), the Emerging hypercycles, if you are interested I can give you more information (links) for this hypothesis (or the others, as you seem to like chemistry).
But there are possible explanations for this problem, and it DOES not prohibit evolution. And we may never know the answer, and I am okay with that.
So it is not scientifically impossible to anchieve. Or it has not been proved yet.
have a nice day.
1 person likes this
@smacksman (6053)
•
15 Feb 07
So what does Behe propose creates diversification of molecular structures if not 'most suitable to do a job'?
Are we into religion as the answer?
