On multiple occasions I have heard the bacterial flagellum (pictured above) used as evidence of irreducible complexity in biology, an argument often used by promoters of intelligent design. After examining this diagram it is not difficult to imagine why promoters of ID would claim it as evidence. The bacterial flagellum is a complex and rigidly organized appendage that superficially appears to be an intricately planned machine rather than an accidental biological structure. And if such an intricate thing looks too complex to be reduced or to have evolved from simpler forms, what other explanation remains except design? However, as with most arguments for intelligent design, evoking irreducible complexity is a fallacious action based on naive conceptions of biology and evolution.
Bacterial organisms have existed on Earth for the past 4 billion years, a very long time for evolutionary processes to be taking place, and have adapted to live in virtually every conceivable environment. Populations of bacteria grow exponentially, with billions of generations produced in a relatively brief period of time, allowing natural selection to have a very strong influence. Evolutionary biologists have theorized that large populations of organisms are more readily influenced by natural selection and that prokaryotes, bacteria and archaea, more readily exchange genes amongst each other. Therefore a large population of prokaryotes evolving over a vast period of time would predictably possess very intricate and complex biological structures. The bacterial flagellum is no surprise or dilemma for evolutionary biologists, in fact it is expected.
Utilization of the bacterial flagellum, or any other so-called irreducibly complex biological structure, as evidence of design is itself an evidence, evidence of a clear misunderstanding of biology and ignorance of evolutionary processes. Anyone who would challenge the modern theory of evolution with intelligent design either does not understand the widely accepted, peer reviewed science they are challenging or has been blinded by their religious convictions. After all ID is a religious view, not a scientific theory, supported almost exclusively by Christians, not scientists. Irreducible complexity is just one in a long line of fallacies promoted by the ID camp that poses no serious challenge to legitimate science.
Intelligent design and its supposed evidences are intellectually dangerous because they provide the public a falsified view of biology and evolution and the religious an erroneous vindication in denying the prevailing views of science. None of the discoveries in the fields of evolutionary biology, genetics, paleontology, etc have done anything except substantiate the accidental, impersonal, material processes of evolution as the best explanation for the origin and development of life. Irreducible complexity is a product of scientific illiteracy and religious conviction, not good science, and denying the true origins of astounding, beautifully complex biological structures like the bacterial flagellum only diminishes those astounding and beautiful qualities.
You didn’t make a single substantive statement against irreducible complexity. You realize that, right? You simply stated your disdain for the idea. You didn’t even address what irreducible complexity is.
Because you are so unbiased and so thoroughly scientific, please, if you will condescend to my level of “scientific illiteracy,” explain how Darwinian evolution can overcome irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity would NOT argue (your straw man line of logic) that “it looks complicated so it must have been designed by a god or something.” The issue is that Darwin had absolutely NO idea what went on inside of cells. With advances in nanotechnology, we can know SOME of the intricacies of cellular activity and function. So, what happens when you have a nano-machine that has unique components in it that previously did not exist, all of which would have to simultaneously come into being at the same time and in proper placement for there to be any functioning at all? That, as I understand it (from my horrid, religiously-informed education, with a not-so-evolved brain), is where irreducible complexity comes in.
On a related note, I’ve been wondering one thing. When and why did you start worshiping at the Altar of Science?
Your so-called “nano-machine” with “components in it that previously did not exist” is not even a scientific notion. This does not occur in nature. Nothing need “come into being” to create complex biological structures, they develop over long periods of time utilizing the organism’s phenotypic plasticity and genetic variability. The production of a complex biological structure does not require all the constituent elements to be present at initiation because these structures develop over time, not instantaneously. 4 billion years is more than sufficient time for random evolutionary processes to produce even the most complex systems we see in nature, at least according to the vast majority of evolutionary biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists.
Exactly how is your definition of irreducible complexity at all dissimilar from mine? When a biological structure seems too complex to have evolved randomly, you assume design. Is this sort of reasoning not what I described? And Darwin may not have known the internal processes of cells but we do and evolution remains the best explanation for the origin and development of life on this planet.
Samuel, what’s up? It’s been a while. Quick comment for you. Im still confused by your frequent use of words like “dangerous” ,”naive”, etc. It seems that you are making value judgements concerning people’s beliefs, this has no place in science, unless you can empirically prove a belief to be “dangerous”. You have told me in previous posts that the purpose of your blog was to educate people in order to increase humanity’s survivability. With that said your agenda continues to be logically perplexing to me. (FYI I’m operating under the assumption that each of your posts are a passive-aggressive attack on Christianity.) This blog entry, for example, seems to conflict with your worldview and general psychological evolution. I am obviously not an Atheist but I’ll pretend to be one in order to explain.
Freud claims that theistic belief is illusion. Freud means that theistic belief is produced by a cognitive process (wishful thinking) that is not ‘reality oriented’; its purpose is not the production of true belief, but (in this case) a belief that enables the believer to avoid the depression and apathy that would set in if he/she saw clearly the miserably appalling condition in which we human beings actually find ourselves. I’m assuming you are in agreement with Freud. I know you lend more credibility to contemporary scientists so I’ll quote David Sloan Wilson; “ In the first place, much religious belief is not detached from reality …. Rather, it is intimately connected to reality by motivating behaviors that are adaptive in the real world—an awesome achievement when we appreciate the complexity that is required to become connected in this practical sense. … Adaptation is the gold standard against which rationality must be judged, along with all other forms of thought. Evolutionary biologists should be especially quick to grasp this point because they appreciate that the well-adapted mind is ultimately an organ of survival and reproduction”.
Sloan is saying that theistic belief is evolutionary important because it motivates behaviors that are adaptive in the real world, increasing survivability and reproduction.
I guess I’m just curious why you harbor such hostility towards Christianity/religion when the most prominent scientists in evolutionary psychology see its importance?
Firstly I never told you nor have I ever said that the purpose of this blog was “to educate people in order to increase humanity’s survivability” and therefore saying so is disingenuous.
Secondly I am not a Freudian, adaptationist, or strong supporter of evolutionary psychology. There are many psychologists, evolutionary biologists, and other scientists (including my current professor Dr. Sahotra Sarkar, a biologist and philosopher of science with a background in theoretical physics) who would disagree with Wilson on a number of points, particularly his adaptationism. I never argued that religion has not been important or influential in human history and it certainly may have developed to promote survival but this is only speculation and does not change the fact that when religion leads people to deny well-supported, compelling scientific evidence it does them a serious and potentially dangerous intellectual disservice. Even if religion is a product of evolutionary processes, whether natural selection or random drift, that does not guarantee an increase in fitness. Suicide attacks are a particularly religious phenomena so it seems clear that a strict adaptationist view of religion will provide insufficient explanations.
I’ve always been suspicious of the irreducible complexity argument, yet I fail to see how you’ve disproven it. I’m under the impression that most mutations are harmful, but genetic variation and thus evolution strives off those mutations that increase fitness. From my understanding of the irreducible complexity argument, the various components of the flagellum are utterly useless on their own, which would seem to decrease fitness, thus decreasing the likelihood that bacteria with those genetic mutations would continue to survive.
So where have I gone astray?
“Anyone who would challenge the modern theory of evolution with intelligent design either does not understand the widely accepted, peer reviewed science they are challenging or has been blinded by their religious convictions.”
“And Darwin may not have known the internal processes of cells but we do and evolution remains the best explanation for the origin and development of life on this planet.”
Your second statement, in light of your first statement, is where you lose me.
Development, yes. Science has largely verified what appear to be Darwinian mechanisms working within species, both in the present day and throughout history.
But then we hit origin, and we get caught up in ambiguous terms. Origin as in beginning? As in THE beginning? Because evolution doesn’t account for that; naturalism does. And naturalism is a philosophical position which is not at all deemed the “best” view by the major consensus of philosophers. Granted, neither is theism, but let’s be honest on both accounts.
There are major philosophical contentions with naturalism: consciousness, the language phenomenon, origin of human rights, the reliability of the senses and reason, etc. While theists are spouting tautologies like “God works in mysterious ways,” I hear naturalists spouting reductionist prophecies like “Neuroscientists will figure out consciousness eventually.”
To suppose that evolutionary naturalism is (as you seem to imply) by consensus the best explanation for the origin of the universe is to ignore a philosophical debate that has raged through the centuries and continues to boil. It has an aftertaste of arrogance.
Obviously the individual components of a complex biological structure such as the bacterial flagellum when separated from each other have no function within the structure, the relevant question is this: can individual components develop by natural processes into a complex, functioning whole? Yes. Although it is commonly believed that most, if not all, mutations are harmful this is simply untrue. Many mutations are wholly neutral and have no affect on fertility, viability, or even phenotype and then of course there are beneficial mutations that increase both fertility and viability. Complex biological structures such as the bacterial flagellum develop over time, very long periods of time, incorporating and expelling new elements that may result from environmental pressures, phenotypic plasticity, or random, neutral drift.
As to the issue of origins, I think you are confused. I was specifically speaking to the origin of life, not the origin of the universe. Nowhere in my post was I discussing the origin of the universe. Just as I believe evolutionary processes are responsible for the development of life I also believe these processes are responsible for abiogenesis, that is generating organic life from inorganic matter. In no way have I claimed to have settled or fully understood the philosophical debate over the origins of the universe, or claimed to have definitively proved ID false for that matter, I simply stated my views on why, having considered the evidence, the design hypothesis is an extremely unlikely candidate for explaining life on this planet.
Samuel, once again evolution does not care about belief or intellect, only behavior. dr sohatra is not even close to being on the same playing field with Wilson. I disagree with Wilson as well but I needed a prominent Atheist scientist to make my point. Since you are an evolutionist, behaviors that increase survivability should be your only concern until you can empirically prove a specific belief to be dangerous. You are taking the positive side of the argument which means the burden of proof is on you to prove the dangers of certain beliefs. You are a practicioner of “academic imperialism”, presenting unproven statements as fact then ignoring that the burden of proof is on you or, not being aware that it is. Compounding this dilemma you are using the word “dangerous” as if it’s an objective concept. You now must explain how the idea of something considered being dangerous is somehow became a universal concept by evolutionary means. You are sprinkling metaphysical issues into your “scientific” post. Doesn’t your worldview see these concepts as being subjective. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth regarding your agenda. I figured your agenda would be the same as evolution’s, since behaviors that lead to survivability and reproductive health is all that matters. since I was off base regarding your agenda please inform me as to what your agenda is and how it’s in harmony with an evolutionists worldview.
I fail to see how Dr. Sarkar is not “on the same playing field” as Wilson, but I’ll just chalk that up to misunderstanding.
Jumping from the top of the Empire State Building is objectively dangerous, that is there is a potentiality of harm. Although an individual may subjectively believe that jumping from the top of the Empire State Building is not dangerous (perhaps they believe they can fly) that does not change the fact that the action itself is inherently dangerous. Rejecting compelling evidence based on religious conviction is dangerous because of the potentialities. If religion tells you scientific evidence is not to be trusted, perhaps you will reject modern medicine and turn to faith healing or voodoo. While this does not necessarily happen in all cases, this and other potential dangers remain. Danger is not a matter of absolute certainty, because we are dealing in potentialities, but a matter of risk. Could you fall from the Empire State Building and not be harmed? Possibly, but there is still enormous risk. Can you be religious and still value scientific evidence? Absolutely, but there is still risk.
As a final note, so as to cover my bases, let me say that I do not believe religion is tantamount to jumping from a skyscraper. I simply used the example to illustrate my reasoning regarding danger.
Im trying to dig deeper than your reasoning for use of the word danger. I’m curious how your worldview allows you to make value judgements. On what authority do you base what you believe to be true? In other words…if the world is purely random how can you determine the importance, legitimacy, or truth of anything your talking about. If the world is what you believe it to be, I don’t see where you can possibly have any authority to determine truth. You clearly believe you have something important to share with the world…how do you know it’s important? In a random and purposeless world nothing should be important. Sorry to beat a dead horse…trying to push you towards having some epistemological awareness.
Re. jumping off the empire state building being objectively dangerous.
Technically your reasoning for objective danger, once again, falls under academic imperialism. What you actually did was make an inference based on your subjective understanding of danger and projected it upon the world’s population in the form of a truth claim. While I concede you are probably correct that harm will occur if one was to leap from a building, I understand your reasoning for making the inference. What i do not understand is what makes your reasoning credible or trustworthy. In this particular case you are acting as your own authority to validate your truth claim. I could go even farther and say you continually take pages and noetic methodology from the theistic worldview’s play book. You made a claim that required faith first, considering you have no data to support a worldwide objective understanding of danger. Many things have a risk of harm, like crossing the street or telling your family you don’t believe in God. I consider crossing the street to be safe while knowing others that consider it dangerous. We are both aware of the risks. It’s obvious that being an atheist in a christian family causes tremendous emotional harm to the people that love you, thus being dangerous. Whereas, it appears that you do not have the same sense of danger that I do. Doesn’t this mean that anything having the possibility to cause harm being labeled as dangerous is completely subjective.
On to my next point re. Rejecting solid evidence because of religious belief. Your crude generalizations of Christians is ridiculous, and your opinion that all Christians base their faith on irreducible complexity or intelligent design is absolutely preposterous. That’s beside the point… Once again, “solid evidence” is subjective and I question your authority to make a truth claim unless you can identify the foundation upon which you base determining the truth. I also question how you, once again, make a value judgement by saying “solid evidence”. In your random, uncaused, purposeless world evidence can’t be significant or “solid” because the authority for your source of truth must also be random, purposeless, and without meaning. There is no purpose in your view of the world, without God the universe is merely matter in motion. Life, death, education, knowledge, this blog, none of it matters if your naturalistic view of the universe is true.