Michael J. Behe

The Lamest Attempt Yet to Answer the Challenge Irreducible Complexity Poses for Darwinian Evolution

The study by Bridgham et al (2006) published in the April 7 issue of Science is the lamest attempt yet — and perhaps the lamest attempt that’s even possible — to deflect the problem that irreducible complexity poses for Darwinism.

The bottom line of the study is this: the authors started with a protein which already had the ability to strongly interact with three kinds of steroid hormones (aldosterone, cortisol, and “DOC” [11-deoxycorticosterone]). After introducing several simple mutations the protein interacted much more weakly with all of those steroids. In other words, a pre-existing ability was decreased.

That’s it! The fact that this extremely modest and substantially irrelevant study is ballyhooed with press releases, a commentary in Science by Christoph Adami, and forthcoming stories in the mainstream media, demonstrates the great anxiety some folks feel about intelligent design.

In the study the authors wished to see if two related modern proteins called the glucocorticoid (GR) receptor and mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) could be derived from a common ancestral protein. Using clever analysis the authors made a protein that they thought represented the ancestral protein. That protein binds several, structurally-similar hormones, as does modern MR. They then introduced two amino acid changes into the protein which are found in modern GR. The two changes caused the ancestral protein to bind the different kinds of hormones anywhere from ten- to a thousand-fold more weakly. That protein bound aldosterone about three-fold more weakly than cortisol. The authors note that modern GR (in tetrapods) also binds aldosterone more weakly than cortisol. So perhaps, the thinking goes, an ancestral gene that could bind both hormones duplicated in the past, one copy accumulated those two mutations to become the modern GR, and the other copy became modern MR.

Documento HTML

Michael J. Behe

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference.

A Series of Eyes

How do we see? In the 19th century the anatomy of the eye was known in great detail and the sophisticated mechanisms it employs to deliver an accurate picture of the outside world astounded everyone who was familiar with them. Scientists of the 19th century correctly observed that if a person were so unfortunate as to be missing one of the eye's many integrated features, such as the lens, or iris, or ocular muscles, the inevitable result would be a severe loss of vision or outright blindness. Thus it was concluded that the eye could only function if it were nearly intact.

As Charles Darwin was considering possible objections to his theory of evolution by natural selection in The Origin of Species he discussed the problem of the eye in a section of the book appropriately entitled "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication." He realized that if in one generation an organ of the complexity of the eye suddenly appeared, the event would be tantamount to a miracle. Somehow, for Darwinian evolution to be believable, the difficulty that the public had in envisioning the gradual formation of complex organs had to be removed.

Darwin succeeded brilliantly, not by actually describing a real pathway that evolution might have used in constructing the eye, but rather by pointing to a variety of animals that were known to have eyes of various constructions, ranging from a simple light sensitive spot to the complex vertebrate camera eye, and suggesting that the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates.

But the question remains, how do we see? Although Darwin was able to persuade much of the world that a modern eye could be produced gradually from a much simpler structure, he did not even attempt to explain how the simple light sensitive spot that was his starting point actually worked. When discussing the eye Darwin dismissed the question of its ultimate mechanism1:

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated.

He had an excellent reason for declining to answer the question: 19th century science had not progressed to the point where the matter could even be approached. The question of how the eye works--that is, what happens when a photon of light first impinges on the retina--simply could not be answered at that time. As a matter of fact, no question about the underlying mechanism of life could be answered at that time. How do animal muscles cause movement? How does photosynthesis work? How is energy extracted from food? How does the body fight infection? Nobody knew.

This paper was originally presented in the Summer of 1994 at the meeting ofthe C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University.

Documento HTML

Michael J. Behe

Fatuous Filmmaking

To put the upcoming seven-part PBS series "Evolution" in perspective, think fat. Dietary fat.

For decades folks in white coats have confidently assured the public that shunning fatty foods – bacon and eggs, butter, steak – would make for longer, healthier lives. Well, guess what? In "The Soft Science of Dietary Fat," published in the March 30 issue of the leading journal Science, science writer Gary Taubes recounts a situation eerily suggestive of Woody Allen's movie Sleeper. In one scene of the 1970's film, a doctor of the future is incredulous when told that 20th-century medicine considered fatty foods and other dietary taboos to be unhealthy. "Precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true," he muses.

Not exactly the opposite, but certainly different. Taubes reports that several very large studies designed to nail down the link between leaner cuisine and longer life have given ambiguous results. Worse, the link never was strong in the first place. Rather, through the combined influence of some zealous scientists and crusading bureaucrats, as well as the ascendancy of a less-is-more philosophy, in the 1970s, cholesterol – a substance found naturally in every cell in your body – was labeled "bad for you." The message, sclerosed into dogma, was taught to school children and consumers throughout the land.

Whatever future work on nutrition may find, here are two questions to keep in mind while watching "Evolution":

If it's so difficult to pinpoint the causes of a single, very specific biological process – heart disease in modern humans – where you can study living specimens who walk into your laboratory, then why shouldn't we expect to have considerably more trouble identifying the causes of the general development of life in the distant past?

If, in the teeth of uncertain or contradictory data, social forces in science and society manufactured a consensus about what constitutes a good diet, why shouldn't we expect much more pressure to impose an artificial consensus about who we are and where we come from?

Friday, September 28, 2001

World Net Daily

Documento HTML

Michael J. Behe

Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry From a speech delivered at Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference.

A Series of Eyes

How do we see? In the 19th century the anatomy of the eye was known in great detail, and its sophisticated features astounded everyone who was familiar with them. Scientists of the time correctly observed that if a person were so unfortunate as to be missing one of the eye's many integrated features, such as the lens, or iris, or ocular muscles, the inevitable result would be a severe loss of vision or outright blindness. So it was concluded that the eye could only function if it were nearly intact.

Charles Darwin knew about the eye too. In the Origin of Species, Darwin dealt with many objections to his theory of evolution by natural selection. He discussed the problem of the eye in a section of the book appropriately entitled "Organs of extreme perfection and complication." Somehow, for evolution to be believable, Darwin had to convince the public that complex organs could be formed gradually, in a step-by-step process.

Documento HTML

Michael J. Behe

Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other.

Preliminary Remarks

In writing on the topic of naturalism and evolution the problem arises of what to call the contending camps. The difficulty comes from the fact that, although the term "evolutionist" is often used to refer to persons who demand the unrelenting application of physical laws to all phenomena in the universe, many other persons who are opposed to this view are perfectly willing to concede that a limited number of phenomena can be explained by Darwinistic principles. Similarly, although a term like "creationist" brings to mind champions of a young-earth theory, it is often applied to persons who do not defend that thesis but do contend that natural laws have at some points been superseded by a supernatural agency. Since the focus of this symposium is the sufficiency of natural law, and in order to avoid the confusing terminology discussed above, in this essay I will use the term "believer" for those who believe in the universal application of natural law and the term "skeptic" for those who doubt it. This has the advantage of using terms for each side that the opposite side generally regards positively. Perhaps this will go a little way toward promoting the good will that this conference strives for.

Department of Biological Science

Lehigh University
Documento HTML

Michael J. Behe

Darwin's Hostages: A decision in Kansas to question evolution dogma has given rise to hysteria and intolerance.

In 1995 the National Academy of Sciences, through its National Research Council arm, issued a set of national science education standards calling for "dramatic changes" in the way science is taught in grade schools and high schools. Several years later the Kansas State Board of Education appointed a panel of scientists and academics to advise it on bringing state guidelines into conformity with the national standards. As the time drew nigh for the board to vote on accepting the revised guidelines, however, a problem cropped up. Alerted by concerned parents, the board discovered that the National Academy had aggressively promoted evolution into a central "unifying concept" of science education, on a par with such fundamentals as "evidence" and "measurement." Students were to be told definitively that "Natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the fossil record of ancient life forms." Even in the murkiest areas of biology such as the origin of life, the academy made clear in its pamphlet Science and Creationism (free when you order a copy of the science standards) that skepticism was not to be countenanced. The academy explicitly warned schools that "'biological evolution' cannot be eliminated from the life science standards." Last August the Kansas board balked. Led by board member Steve Abrams, a doctor of veterinary medicine, a 64 majority declined to adopt the academy's standards on speculative aspects of Darwin's theory, although students' knowledge of "microevolution"--small changes caused by natural selection that can be observed in the laboratory--would still be tested.

American Spectator

December 1, 1999
 
Documento HTML

Michael J. Behe

Darwin Under the Microscope

BETHLEHEM, PA Pope John Paul II's statement last week that evolution is "more than just a theory" is old news to a Roman Catholic scientist like myself.

I grew up in a Catholic family and have always believed in God. But beginning in parochial school I was taught that He could use natural processes to produce life. Contrary to conventional wisdom, religion has made room for science for a long time. But as biology uncovers startling complexity in life, the question becomes, can science make room for religion?

Documento HTML