The Unlikelihood of Unguided Evolution

Home , Irreducible complexity, Michael Denton

THE UNLIKELIHOOD OF UNGUIDED EVOLUTION

Y-ORIGINS APOLOGETICS MAGAZINE- ARTICLE EXCERPT There are many great apologetic books that you could leave with students if only they would read them. But they probably won’t. They might, however, skim through a magazine. So we compiled the most convincing apologetics for the existence of God and the best evidence for Jesus into two highly graphic magazines and had the designers of Relevant magazine make it look really cool.

Y-Origins deals with proofs for the existence of God ranging from arguments from Intelligent Design to the nature of man (mind, aesthetics, morality, etc.).

Y-Jesus presents the classic evidence for Christ including “Lord,

Liar, Lunatic,” Evidence for the Resurrection, Claims to Deity, New Testament Reliability and Fulfillment of Prophecy. Y-ORIGINS

ORDER ONLINE AT CRUPRESS.COM

BIOLOGY REVEALS NATURALISM’S FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR “IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX” ORGANS AND ORGANISMS

© 2010, CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.com Looking down at Greenland from 32,000 the complexity we see around us? Instead feet on my trip from Rome to Seattle, I of just assuming naturalism to be true, we heard an unfamiliar noise in the aircraft should look at actual examples of living that disturbed my slumber. Suddenly I systems and check to see if Darwinian began to wonder what would happen if processes are adequate to explain how they one tiny part on the enormous Boeing 747 came to be. failed. Engines, hydraulics, air pressur- ization—all were complex systems that GOING worked only when several interdependent BEYOND parts functioned properly. DARWIN

In vain I sought comfort in my airline The human eye is perhaps the best-known pretzels, but comfort can never be found in example of a complex system that couldn’t low-fat foods. I kept thinking of all those just pop up overnight. (“Say, Bill, what’s dedicated employees (excuse me: “members that thing growing on your face?” “I of the Boeing family”) shown on the com- thought it was acne, but now that you men- mercials who apparently love nothing more in tion it, I think can see out of it.”) life than a well-oiled 747 and who perpetually ponder my safety. But the nagging thought The objection raised by the complexity of still popped into my head: “Just one faulty or the eye is not a new one. Darwin himself missing part and I’d become the ﬁrst bomb dealt with such objections in a special ever to be dropped on Greenland.” section of his work entitled “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication.” In one sense, biological systems are like my Darwin (apparently not a reader of X-Men Boeing 747: one missing or defective part comics) agreed that a mutation causing and they won’t work. Here lies one of the a fully developed eye to suddenly appear major problems that Darwin himself was would be tantamount to a miracle. So he troubled about. How did highly complex, argued that such complex systems must interdependent biological systems like arise over a longer period of time through a the eye develop slowly over eons of time? gradual process, mutation upon mutation. They would never have worked until fully He added that the eye might have devel- developed. oped in any number of ways, by which he was trying to convince us that even an eye Let’s step back for a minute and think about far less developed than ours might still be a all this. favorable mutation.

Is naturalism (the belief that everything His explanation for the gradual develop- is the result of natural cause-and-effect) ment of such complex systems certainly worthy of the conﬁdence we place in it? Is had its critics, but by and large his ideas the accumulation of small changes over mil- were embraced because they helped to lions of years able to account for life in all explain a great deal of the observable

© 2010, CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.comTHE PROBLEM WITH HALF AN EYE • ARTICLE FOUR • 39 DARWIN ONCE 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.” phenomena of our world. As the evolutionary movement grew, a great deal of evidence, at least at the macro level, was garnered in support of Darwin’s ideas—evidence similar to what you were taught in branch of science was not invited to the tions, my theory would absolutely break your high school textbooks. Adaptability, meetings [that produced the evolutionary down.”2 Behe’s book, in essence, says, “OK, survival of the fi ttest, and other Darwinian synthesis], and for good reason. It did not Charles, take a look at these!” and goes on tenets are clearly principles demonstrable yet exist.”1 Behe is referring to his own fi eld to cite a handful of examples of what he in nature. By the mid-twentieth century, of study, biochemistry. calls irreducible complexity. Darwinism had gained widespread accep- tance, but the various scientifi c disciplines Behe’s fi eld did not begin until later in the What is irreducible complexity? First, re- were developing different ideas, visions, and century, after the advent of the electron mi- member that Darwin stated that his theory interpretations of what evolution meant for croscope. Yet biochemistry is perhaps the stood on the belief that organisms develop their fi eld of study. So the leaders of these most critical of all the disciplines for this by successive mutations or developments fi elds organized a series of meetings to study, because it analyzes life at the cellular (“developments” sounds more politically hammer out a coherent and unifi ed theory level and observes the molecular foundations correct than “mutations”) slowly over time. of evolution. (I’m thinking they also did a of living organisms. If naturalistic evolution In order to do that, each intermediate state little drinking.) The result was called the is indeed true, and if life can develop wholly (say, a half-developed eye) must be shown “evolutionary synthesis,” also known as apart from outside intelligence, then it must to be of some benefi t to the organism. A Neo-Darwinism. be demonstrated to be operating at the mo- species is going to progress in the world of lecular level. The new fi ndings of Behe and natural selection for a few million years In fairness to Charles Darwin, he never other microbiologists assert that it cannot. with a half-developed eye only if such an insisted that evolutionary processes hap- eye serves some purpose for pened completely apart from an intelligent the organism. Make sense? (I’m thinking Designer. But as the movement grew, BETTER there must be a Far Side cartoon some- those most vocal were clearly adherents of MOUSETRAPS where in all this.) naturalistic evolution, leaving no place for the idea of a grand Designer. If it’s a helpful But, as Behe observed, certain systems in metaphor, picture it like a political party that Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box has stirred the body can’t function unless all of their has some general consensus on issues but also up quite a few confl icts in the academic components are fully developed. This is the includes a good bit of diversity. At times there community. Darwin’s Black Box (very phenomenon he calls irreducible complex- can be impulses and movements within the readable, considering the subject matter is ity. If one part is missing or inoperative, the party that dominate. That was the case with microbiology) has a straightforward thesis. entire system fails to function. atheism within the evolutionary movement. Darwin once stated, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed Behe uses a mousetrap as a nonliving ex- But as Dr. Michael Behe, associate profes- which could not possibly have been formed ample of irreducible complexity. Five basic sor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, by numerous, successive, slight modifi ca- notes in his book Darwin’s Black Box, “One

40 • ARTICLE FOUR • THE PROBLEM WITH HALF© 2010, AN EYE CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.com ments. You have to have little molecular parts of the trap must work together in trucks, which have motors attached to order for it to catch mice: (1) a fl at wooden them. You have to have a little highway platform; (2) a spring thingy; (3) a sensi- motor. … Not only that but the propeller for them travel along. You have to iden- tive catch that releases when pressure is can stop spinning within a quarter turn tify which components go into which applied; (4) a metal bar that connects to and instantly start spinning the other truck, so there is a signal attached to the the catch and holds the hammer back; and direction at 10,000 rpms.3 protein. The truck has to know where (5) the hammer that serves as the instru- it’s going and each truck has a key that ment of death and cruelty for our harmless The fl agellum’s molecular motor requires will fi t only the lock of its particular mouse. A mousetrap needs each of these 50 proteins, all working in synchrony, to cellular destination. Other proteins act parts to kill mice. Each part works function. Like the partially constructed as loading docks, opening the truck and interdependently, and so a partially con- mousetrap, the fl agellum would be worth- letting the contents into the destination structed mousetrap serves no function and less and perish unless all 50 proteins were compartment.4 is worthless. fully developed. Molecular biologist Michael Denton uses Behe’s book focuses on a handful of ex- While not wanting this article to turn into a similar metaphor to describe the cell’s amples, though he states that any biology to a science textbook, let me say that you complexity: book contains dozens of them. One of the simply have to see this construct to believe examples he cites is the microscopic bacte- it and to appreciate what Behe is trying to To grasp the reality of life as it has been rial fl agellum, which the bacterium uses as describe. It becomes almost unimaginable revealed by molecular biology, we must a miniature whiplike rotary motor to propel to think of the fl agellum developing on an magnify a cell a thousand million times itself. The fl agellum is a swimming device increment-by-random-increment basis. that works similar to a rotary propeller. It is described by Behe like this: Another example Behe cites is what he calls “the intracellular transport system” found “WE CONCLUDE— Just picture an outboard motor on a within cells. The magnifi ed cell in Darwin’s UNEXPECTEDLY—THAT boat and you get a pretty good picture day looked something like an opaque pan- THERE IS LITTLE of how the fl agellum functions, only the cake jellyfi sh with a fuzzy-looking dark spot EVIDENCE FOR THE fl agellum is far more incredible. The in the center called the nucleus. It all looked NEO-DARWINIAN VIEW; fl agellum’s propeller is long and whip- so simple. Only recently, under powerful ITS THEORETICAL like, made out of a protein called fl agel- magnifi cation, have the mysteries of the cell FOUNDATIONS AND lin. This is attached to a drive shaft by begun to be unveiled. THE EXPERIMENTAL hook protein, which acts as a universal EVIDENCE SUPPORTING joint, allowing the propeller and drive BEHE DESCRIBES THE IT ARE WEAK.” shaft to rotate freely. Several types of IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEX- protein act as bushing material (like ITY FOUND IN THE CELL -JERRY COYN washer/donut) to allow the drive shaft THIS WAY: UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT to penetrate the bacterial wall (like the OF ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION side of a boat) and attach to a rotary Plant and animal cells are divided into many discrete compartments; supplies, including enzymes and proteins, have to be shipped between these compart-

© 2010, CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.comTHE PROBLEM WITH HALF AN EYE • ARTICLE FOUR • 41 until it is twenty kilometers in diameter on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the and resembles a giant airship large fossil record has struck many a forlorn enough to cover a great city like London paleontologist looking to learn some- or New York. What we would then see thing about evolution.6 would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. Biologists Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders make the following indictment: On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port It is now approximately half a century holes of a vast space ship, opening and since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was closing to allow a continual stream formulated. A great deal of research has of materials to flow in and out. If we been carried on within the paradigm it were to enter one of these openings defines. Yet the successess of the theory we would find ourselves in a world of are limited to the minutia of evolution, supreme technology and bewildering such as the adaptive change in color- complexity.5 ation of moths, while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which in- But, again, it is not simply complexity; terest us most, such as how there came it is irreducible complexity. Going back to be moths in the first place.7 to Behe’s illustration of the mousetrap, everything must be in place for the system Jerry Coyn of the department of ecology and to work. Missing just one component, the evolution at the University of Chicago has whole system is worthless. Therefore, it is recently said, “We conclude—unexpect- difficult to understand how it could possibly edly—that there is little evidence for the have developed gradually over time. neo-Darwinian view; its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence support- DARWINIAN ing it are weak.”8 DOUBTERS, UNITE WHAT’S THE USE OF Even staunch evolutionists are bewildered HALF AN EYE? by the lack of evidence for Darwin’s theory of gradual macroevolution. Paleontologist In the other corner of this heavyweight Niles Eldredge states: bout, naturalism’s adherents seem to be scrambling to propose ways that these ir- No wonder paleontologists shied away reducibly complex systems could have been from evolution for so long. It never seems beneficial to the organism in an interme- to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff diate state of development. Ken Miller of faces yields … the very occasional slight Brown University, for example, has taken accumulation of change—over millions issue with Behe’s mousetrap metaphor and of years, at a rate too slow to account has suggested, “Take away the spring and for all the prodigious change that has you could have a keychain … the catch of occurred during evolutionary history. the mousetrap could be used as fish hook.”9 … Evolution cannot forever be going Miller is suggesting that the different parts

42 • ARTICLE FOUR • THE PROBLEM WITH HALF© 2010, AN EYE CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.com could actually serve other functions, differ- learns of biochemistry the more unbeliev- ent from their final function, as the organ- able it becomes unless there is some type ism evolves. of organizing principle—an architect for believers.”10 Behe seems unfazed by the critique, as there appears to be silence coming from the opposite camp on what those “other EXTREME purposes” might have been for the indi- PERFECTION AND vidual parts that make up a feature like the COMPLICATION, INDEED flagellum. Furthermore, in the recent book We began this article by mentioning the The Case for a Creator, Behe answers criti- objection of the human eye as it was raised cisms by saying, “Even if each component and addressed by Darwin. For most people of the mousetrap could theoretically have coming to grips with the implications of a useful function prior to its assembly into naturalistic evolution, complex structures the mousetrap. You’d still have the problem like the human eye are not simply a hard of how the mousetrap becomes assembled.” pill to swallow but rather a chicken bone stuck in the throat. Intuitively, we struggle Surprised at the sudden maelstrom caused to imagine how such a structure could by his book, Behe defends his position in slowly develop over time and what use a The Boston Review. “The rotary nature of half-developed eye would serve. the flagellum has been recognized for about 25 years. During that time not a single A careful reading of Darwin’s explanation in paper has been published in the biochemi- “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Compli- cal literature even attempting to show how cation” reveals that he never answers the such a machine might have developed by problem. He states that a seeing mecha- natural selection.” nism could have developed in any number of ways, but he doesn’t explain what might Behe understates the issue. James Shapiro, have led to the initial mutation. Perhaps if a biochemist at the University of Chicago, someone had called him on the carpet in wrote, “There are no detailed Darwinian the mid-nineteenth century, we could have accounts for the evolution of any funda- been spared this rather circuitous journey. mental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” You can stay at the macro level of broad gen- eralities in evolutionary theory, but demon- Darwin’s Black Box is a scientific book, not strating the exact mechanics of how such a theological one, but Behe has elsewhere things can develop without the aid of an made explicit what is implicit in his writ- outside intelligence is like a loan that sooner ing. In a recent interview, Behe had this to or later comes due. A century and a half after say on the implications of his research and Origin of Species, microbiology was left with the issue of irreducible complexity at the ugly task of trying to balance the budget. molecular level: “The world is too compli- It couldn’t. Darwin’s Black Box and other cated in all its parts and interconnections recent books out of microbiology are simply to be due to chance alone. … The more one the final accounting.

© 2010, CruPress, All Rights Reserved. CruPress.comTHE PROBLEM WITH HALF AN EYE • ARTICLE FOUR • 43 In light of these new discoveries in microbiology, and the failure of Darwinian theory to account for the irreducible complexity of life’s processes, it seems reasonable to think that we should be looking beyond the NOTES bounds of naturalism for explanations about how we got here, who we are, and why we 1. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New exist. York: Free Press, 2003), 24. 2. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (New York: Bantam Books, 1999), 158. 20/20 3. Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 204. Charles Darwin once admitted, “The eye to 4. Quoted in ibid., 208. 11 this day gives me a cold shudder.” He had 5. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in good reason to feel that way. The eye is a Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD, Adler & Adler, complex structure that seems to add value 1986), 328. to an organism only when it is complete. 6. Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin Could natural processes have produced (New York: Wiley, 1995), 95. such an organ? 7. M. H. Ho and P. T. Sanders, “Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution,” Journal of Theoretical Biol- ogy 78 (1979): 589. DID YOU KNOW? 8. H. A. Orr and J. A. Coyne, “The Genetics EACH HUMAN EYE … of Adaptation: A Reassessment,” American Naturalist 140 (1992): 726. • has over 100 million rods 9. Ken Miller, Finding Darwin’s God (New • handles 1.5 million simultaneous mes- York: Cliff Street, 1999), 145. sages 10. Quoted in Strobel, 217. • moves 100,000 times each day 11. Charles Darwin (1860) in letter to Asa • has automatic focusing Gray, F. Darwin, ed,, The Life and Letters of • has six million cones Charles Darwin, vol, 2 (London: John Mur- • can distinguish among seven million ray, 1888), 273. colors12 12. Hugh Davson, Physiology of the Eye, 5th ed (New York: McGraw Hill, 1991).