Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

Author: Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biological Sciences - Lehigh University

This book is amazing. It easily ranks along with Uncommon Dissent and Darwin on Trial to make the top three books I've read so far. In fact, I might put it in the top two.

Behe's book is straightforward and profound; he presents five very specific examples of biochemical irreducible complexity within cellular structures and concludes that Darwinian gradualism is incapable of creating such structures.

Those five structures/systems are:

1.) Cilia/Flagella

2.) Blood Clotting

3.) Delivery of molecules from one cell compartment to another, particularly to lysosomes

4.) Immune Systems, particularly the work of antibodies

5.) The creation of nucleotides, particularly the form of adenine known as AMP

The first four are irreducibly complex, the fifth is not necessarily so but the statistics of its gradual evolution are beyond reasonable measure and the process involves unreasonable assumptions.

You'll have to read the book to see the processes involved in these examples and to see why they are irreducibly complex. Behe's conclusions are very clear and he explains his evidence and reasoning thoroughly. He also takes much effort to explain what irreducible complexity is and what it is not.

With these examples, it becomes abundantly clear that Darwinian gradualism can not account for the evolution of cells, prokaryotes or eukaryotes. There has to be another explanation and the evidence all points toward design of some kind. The designer can remain anonymous; design can be inferred without knowing the identity of who or what did the designing.

As if this wasn't enough, Behe goes on to give a thorough account of Intelligent Design theory in greater detail. This book almost becomes an introductory text into ID as a whole.

The meat of Behe's argument goes like this: Now that science has looked inside the cell in detail and seen all the minute machinery that makes it up, this is now the level on which life must be explained. It does not do to explain the progression of structures on the level of gross anatomy, like a progression of eyes or limbs, these explanations mean nothing unless they include biochemical explanations and examples of how such strutures actually evolved. Saying that one form of eye evolved into another would be like saying that one form of computer evolved into another. It is an argument of irrelevance unless you can explain how the processor, RAM, video card, sound card, network card, power supply, case, motherboard, lights, etc... all evolved together. Such an account must involve specifics! Just saying that the pieces evolved by some fantastical story without any specific and thorough steps of exact change with exact selective pressures, exact reasons for increased fitness, etc... is worthless.

With that established, Behe gives four specific examples of systems that are irreducibly complex. He then goes to show that no explanations have been given for these or any other biochemical strutures in evolutionist literature. There are a few "just so" stories but a complete lack of specific evolutionary steps and examples. Darwinism can not explain these things, but it must if it is a valid theory of life's origin and diversity.

Behe's challenge has been met only with ad hominem attacks (big surprise) and distortions of his original arguments. He includes an afterword in this edition that explains the response his book has generated and his response to that response. It is a simple scenario; biochemistry has raised the bar of life's explanation and Darwinism can not foot the bill. There is strong and specific evidence for design in nature and Darwinists are completely unable to refute it.

After reading this book, the reader will understand Intelligent Design quite well. Not only that, but the reader will be surprised to see that Darwinists have not, and can not, explain away the evidence that ID presents. It is a shame that the arguments of this book are suppressed and waved over by the scientific community. It's about time that science pursued facts without being chained to a presumptive framework that rules certain things, like ID, out of court without evidence or explanation.

Darwin on Trial

Author: Phillip E. Johnson, Professor of Law - University of California at Berkeley

In this amazing book of only around 200 pages, Johnson succeeds in fairly evaluating the evidence that Darwinists use to support their theory of evolution. I think he has legitimately analyzed the data at hand absent metaphysical assumptions or biases. This makes this work similar to that of Wells in one respect, but very different in terms of content, purpose, and style.

Johnson is a professor of law and naturally views this topic from a legal standpoint as well as from the standpoint of argument style. He has very little to say about "creation-science" or "fundamentalism" since they have nothing at all to do with his topic at hand. He is concerned, rather, with considering whether or not valid and convincing evidence for Darwinist evolution exists when taken out of a naturalistic presumptive framework or metaphysical model. After he has examined the evidence and taken the reader through these steps, he confidently concludes that the evidence at hand does not support the theory that life on earth is the product of purely naturalistic forces acting through natural selection and random mutation. In fact, such evidence is not only rare but nonexistent.

He is well aware that organisms change within population groups to very limited degrees. Bacteria populations can change to resist antibiotics; insect populations change to resist insecticide; and, yes, finches' beaks within a population can change sizes from small to large and back again due to environmental pressures. Johnson is even convinced that the peppered moth example of natural selection is valid which Wells competently defeats in Icons of Evolution. None of this supports anything more than what I just typed. Those small changes occur, but the jump from this data to the assumption that such changes account for the existence of bacteria, insects, and finches in the first place is not empirical but rather the consequence of a certain philosophical presupposition.

While Johnson and Wells both examine Darwinist evidence and the metaphysical assumptions behind that evidence, Wells does more of the former while Johnson does more of the latter. The difference between Wells and Johnson is that Wells took ten specific icons of evolution, examined and debunked them, and lamented the modern state of scientific affairs; Johnson examines more general categories of Darwinist evidence, though he does take time to illustrate their lack of empirical justification, and focuses more intently on the arguments employed in the process.

This book is phenomenal and monumental. Johnson begins by categorically surveying the evidence: the legal setting, natural selection, mutations, the fossil record, evolutionary "fact" vs. "theory", the vertebrate sequence, molecular evodence, and prebiological evolution. Johnson has the genius ability to point out serious problems in reason and argument that may be hard to recognize for the layman. He also has a thorough knowledge of these topics, no doubt through extensive research.

After this he has concluded that Darwinism lacks the evidence it claims to have. He then discusses that given the rules of science that they employ, the lack of evidence is not a problem for them; their theory is metaphysical and doesn't even require empirical data. He then discusses the Darwinist cultural monopoly in regard to religion and education and concludes his book with a chapter titled "Science and Pseudoscience" where he makes the distinction between science (falsifiable) and pseudoscience (not falsifiable).

I was intriguied by his references to Popper and Kuhn in relation to the discussion of scientific paradigms and falsifiable theories. In order for a theory to truly validate itself it must make a risky claim or prediction and then discover that the prediction or claim was specifically true or false. There need to be specific and clear criteria for both the vindication and falsification of the theory in question. Darwinism, as it stands, is not falsifiable since it makes no risky predictions and absorbs everything it comes across as more "evidence" for itself. It therefore explains everything which by consequence explains nothing. Instead of using the theory to predict certain things (data), it merely gathers data and explains it in terms of the theory. This is completely backwards.

As for the scientific paradigms, Johnson mentions Kuhn's theory that science (and really humankind in general) takes on a certain paradigm which it uses to create questions and the rules on how to answer them. Conflicting data is explained away but rarely considered threatening to the paradigm since the paradigm is essentially a worldview through which science views everything. Kuhn postulates that science goes through paradigm shifts from time to time. I think his observation is quite accurate and, more significantly, important for our society to recognize. Our assumptions, metaphysical or otherwise, need to be acknowledged candidly and openly.

This book is amazing. If I hadn't already read Uncommon Dissent I would declare this the best anti-Darwinist book that I have ever read. It certainly lives on the same level as Uncommon Dissent but is different and unique in its own right. Every American student should read this book; it is that profound and important.

Icons of Evolution: Science of Myth?

Author: Jonathan Wells, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture

I have to admit that my expectations for this book were a bit low, but I was pleasantly surprised in spite of this and was happy to be wrong in my assumptions. The book is topically arranged around ten "Icons of Evolution", the often repeated and publicly famous "evidences" for Darwinism. Wells points out that, in various degrees of severity, these icons all misrepresent the actual evidence. Each topic has its own chapter and contains more than enough research to completely debunk Darwinian orthodoxy.

One icon (the Miller-Urey experiment) gives the false impression that scientists have demonstrated an important first step in the origin of life. One (the four-winged fruit fly) is portrayed as though it were raw material for evolution, but it is actually a hopeless cripple - an evolutionary dead end. Three icons (vertebrate limbs, Archaeopteryx, and Darwin's finches) show actual evidence but are typically used to conceal fundamental problems in interpretation. Three (the tree of life, fossil horses, and human origins) are incarnations of concepts masquerading as neutral descriptions of nature. And two icons (Haeckel's embryos, and peppered moths on tree trunks) are fakes...

This is not science. This is not truth-seeking. This is dogmatism, and it should not be allowed to dominate scientific research and teaching. Instead of using the icons of evolution to indoctrinate students in Darwinian theory, we should be using them to teach students how theories can be corrected in light of the evidence. Instead of teaching science at its worst, we should be teaching science at its best.

And science at its best pursues the truth. Dobzhansky was dead wrong, and so are those who continue to chant his anti-scientific mantra ["nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"]. To a true scientist, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence.

Since this book covers so many different topics, it can only briefly introduce them. Each topic could easily warrant its own book of thorough treatment. This gives Icons of Evolution a wonderful assortment of information at the cost of more detailed study. Wells makes up for this, however, through skillful summary. He artfully reduces mass research into carefully chosen and pertinent statements on each subject.

Wells also has a thorough grasp of the metaphysical assertions and assumptions that accompany these various icons of evolution. In most chapters, he precisely juxtaposes the available evidence against statements by leading biologists and examines the philosophical conclusions that they make. The reader is treated to abundant non-sequiturs and mental gymnastics as evidence is twisted beyond recognition by various outspoken Darwinists.

Perhaps the most unique contribution of Wells's book is his examination of current biology textbook material. In each of his sections he compares the available evidence with the current information printed in biology textbooks. In each case, the reader shudders at the rampant dishonesty and, in some cases, intentional deception that these books inflict upon American education. This is one of the more disturbing aspects of Wells's research. The presence of dishonesty is bad enough, but the amount Wells uncovers, bold and flagrantly displayed in publication after publication funded largely by public money, is enough to evoke genuine outrage. At the end of the book Wells includes an audit of some popular textbooks and grades them on their presentation of the various "icons". The results are dismal.

After reading this book, the evidence Darwinists use to promote their worldview seems much less intimidating. In fact, it seems sad and twisted and the reader is left with feelings of anger at the outright lies promoted in public education and feelings of despair at the state of American science. Why can't biology be honest with the more noble sciences like physics and chemistry? Why do biologists cheat and lie and why do we have to put up with it?

This critique of the most famous and propogandized evidences for Darwinism is an item that every educator should be required to read. Nowhere does Wells base any arguments on religion, faith, the Bible, God, or anything of the sort. He keeps to the evidence, quite unlike the Darwinists he discusses, and amply disarms these iconographic pillars of evolution. Is evolution true or false? Wells doesn't seem to care; but he certainly doesn't want lies and deception infiltrating our schools and society and he therefore rightly throws these "icons" in the garbage where they belong. The problem, as he points out, is that these icons are the evidence for evolution. Why should we believe a theory based on misinformation?

Transitional Fossils

Something David Berlinski said got me thinking:

"I am happy to salute Archaeopteryx, recognizing the little monster as half-bird and half-reptile"

Now, Berlinski isn't a creationist but he does have a problem with Darwinist evolution. His comment, however, struck me in an interesting way. Why do creationists fret over the supposed "transitional" fossils? What is there really to worry about? So what if a creature is half-bird and half-reptile, that doesn't mean it evolved from either or into either. It just means it's half-bird and half-reptile. Peculiar, sure; proof of evolution, hardly.

The simple facts of reality are on our side. The past is inscrutable. Even if there was a perfect procession of fossils (which there absolutely isn't); even if we could create life from non-life in the lab by purely random processes (which we absolutely can not); even if we could observe macroevolution from one creature into another (which we absolutely have and will not) what would it prove? Nothing! It would only open up the possibility that such things might or can happen, not that they did in fact occur in the past. None of this can be proven empirically. Thus should cause science to step back and stop making dogmatic statements about such uncertain ground. Science is a fine thing as long as it keeps itself in check by its own standards of empirical observation and it remains purely objective and impartial. The past is not an object that can be reliably studied through these methods. It is therefore not the proper domain for scientific study, especially not dogmatic scientific conclusions.

Thought Police (aka "scientists")

"Science", if you can refer to such a broad concept as a single entity, has become an ideological bulwark. The establishment today has so long ago lost its roots that it has become what it once fought against: dogmatic metaphysical indoctrination.

Science, as a term, is simply the quest for knowledge and understanding. Technically, it isn't even the study of "truth"; rather it merely collects and arranges data. It is supposed to be very much like a trial judge: an impartial force with no investment in or desire for a certain conclusion. Just as a trial judge is not supposed to care which side wins or loses, science is not supposed to care what conclusions the data supports. In the words of Carl Sagan:

"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science."

Why, then, do we find ourselves in a very different situation? "Science", the establishment, has made it clear that any conclusions supporting creationism, christianity, teology, and many other concepts are not allowed. Wait a minute. That is not an impartial force with no investment in or desire for a certain conclusion. Therefore, I must conclude that these are not the words of science but rather the words of a dogmatic metaphysical system of thought. If the data at hand somehow did indicate that creationism was the best explanation for biological life, why is that not allowed? Where is the quest for knowledge if certain conclusions are ruled out a priori? The discrepancy is so blatant that I just summed it up in a single paragraph. What happened to science?

What if the data at hand indicated that humans have souls, that God does exist, that miracles have occurred, and that this world and universe were intelligently designed? Why should science care? It isn't supposed to prejudge. It doesn't work to simply say that science is the study of only physical things becuase that automatically assumes that nonphysical things can neither be studied nor can be the conclusion from physical study. Where is there evidence for such a conclusion? Science isn't supposed to care.

Take this quote from David Berlinski (not a creationist, by the way) in response to one of his critics:

"Paul R. Gross is anxious lest in criticizing Darwinian theory I give comfort to creationists. It is a common concern among biologists, but one, I must confess, to which I am indifferent. I do not believe biologists should be in the business of protecting the rest of us from intellectual danger."

How poignant a statement! When did science become our thought police? Why should science care what we believe or what we doubt?

It can only be concluded that the behavior of "science", the establishment, indicates an overarching worldview that they seek to enforce. Otherwise they honestly shouldn't care what the data indicates. I say this is a serious problem and gross waste of our society's time and money. Why does science care what we believe? That isn't its business.

Why should "science", the establishment, care if a certain school board wants to teach Intelligent Design? [Adam was waiting for my statement on this]. It isn't science's domain to tell us what to believe, only to present us with its findings. Why does science care if the data can be interpreted to support teleology? It isn't supposed to care if it really is impartialy seeking the truth, no matter what that truth might be. In fact, from this school board reaction, I can tell that science didn't even do its homework (not that it should have been involved in the first place). Even reading a single book on Intelligent Design shows that it strongly supports evolution. In fact, Intelligent Design theorists are primarily staunch evolutionists but not Darwinists; they see design and teleology as inherent properties of the natural world. Again, why should science care?

It really is time to grow up. I don't need thought police, do you?

Mind and Matter, Soul and Substance

After reading Uncommon Dissent for the second time and reviewing each article, I have this topic on my mind. I suppose my inquiry was particularly inspired by Christopher Michael Langan's essay, though I've wondered about this for some time now.

Without getting overly abstract, let me introduce this issue. As Langan points out, there has to exist some medium wherein causes are linked to their effects. Take a bat intersecting with a ball, for example. The bat swings with a certain degree of force and, upon hitting the ball, transfers a degree of that force. We can describe this medium in terms of physical forces: mass, matter, velocity, momentum, etc...

Causality can also exist in more than one plane of reality, however. An example of this is the intersection of mind and matter. How exactly does a mind intersect with a body? I'm not talking about a brain, I'm talking about the nonphysical consciousness that we call "mind". A person can decide to drive to work with their mind and somehow this is causally transferred into the brain which guides their body to complete the task. Mind connects with matter in this way, somehow.

An even better example is the intersection of soul (if you consider that separate from the mind) and matter. How does a soul, what makes a person who he or she is, reside within a body and mind? How does it causally interact with the body and mind?

These are all interesting questions, but I don't intend to answer them here. I'm not concerned with exactly how mind, soul, and body are causally connected as long as it can be acknowledged that mind and soul are nonphysical and yet they causually interact with the physical body somehow.

Along these lines, it seems only natural that when the mind or soul interacts with the body there is a physical manifestation of that causal relationship. In other words, emotions (which can take place within the mind and soul) are still physically manifested in the brain and body. Emotions exist, therefore, in both planes of reality. Not only this, but if these things are true the physical manifestations of the said reactions are the result of the relationship.

This boils down to my point: physical properties are not indicative of a lack of the nonphysical. Just because we have found that seratonin is involved in emotions does not mean that emotions are a purely physical quality. There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that the discovery of a physical quality, such as seratonin levels, is necessarily a cause; it could just as easily be an effect.

Applying this over all of science, we see examples all around us of people finding new physical manifestations of things once thought nonphysical. This is espeically true in psychology and biology today, but was also true in other disciplines in the past. Meteorology, for example, took "God" out of lightning and thunder. It did this not because of evidence against God, but becuase a physical nature was discovered in weather events.

It strikes me as odd that people think a physical event must therefore lack a nonphysical cause; especially since we observe it constantly between our minds and bodies. How presumptuous of us to eliminate the cause by explaining the effect. This is one of science's favorite tricks and it is step-by-step eliminating every bit of nonphysical reality from our culture. Evidence for this? None, of course; only the charging assumption that nonphysical events are simply not yet "explained".

Creationist Museum in the Works!

I was alerted to this museum's construction here through an MSN article very clearly against the notion. You can click the title of this post for the offical website.

This is some incredible stuff! I am so excited. I will definitely make it there somehow or another. This museum looks like it's going to be impressive. I can hardly wait. In fact, we should all go.

The Deniable Darwin

Author: David Berlinski, multiple past professorships in mathematics, logic, and philosophy

This is the final article in this book, and they certainly saved one of the best for last. Berlinski writes with impressive wit and diction, and his sense of humor is very agreeable. This was probably the most enjoyable essay to read.

Unlike the others, this essay includes a number of responses and surreplies at the end. There are some very big evolutionary leaders among the mix and the overall impression the reader gets is that these scientists are either so floored that any educated person could doubt Darwinism or are offended that their worldview would every be questioned that they resort to ad hominem attacks instead of a mature or fruitful discussion of any sort. They do as much good for the book as do the actual contributors.

Berlinski covers a range of topics from the fossil record, statistical improbability of design from chance, and Darwinian circular reasoning. He also, to my enjoyment, brought up the crushing argument that Darwinism, able to "explain" everything (contradictions included), effectively explains nothing. It adds nothing to our knowledge of the natural world; it is merely saying that we observe that some organisms die and some don't for some reason through supposed mutations somehow. Useless.

Unlike his opponents, Berlinski makes ample use of available evidence and supposed Darwinist "proofs", slicing them apart like a trained surgeon. Like I already said, his article is impressive.

He also makes it a point to introduce one of his own larger problems with Darwinism: that it excludes design from the outset only to reintroduce it later under a different name. Darwinism does this in various ways, namely by holding up computer simulations that supposedly show random mutations reaching a viable goal. The problem, as Berlinski aptly demonstrates, is that the computers work toward a goal and actively keep mutations closer to the goal while discarding those that are not. Darwinism, being purely random, has no goals and to sneak them in like this only shows its own statistical failure to account for even a simple phrase through random permutations.

This article is the perfect final piece of this collection and wraps up the set nicely. If you read this book, be sure to read it to the very end. Bravo, Berlinski! This is top-notch work.

Welcome!

I'm proud to welcome X and Coolwater to the blog.

It's great to have you two on board.

X has his own blog here where he discusses a range of topics from evolution to the new world order.

Coolwater, my brother, is studying for medical school and reads a lot of information perfect for our discussions. He brings a solid creationist perspective to the table.

I hope this can be a good place for discussion, I'll try to comment on all the posts here. I have registered this blog on Technorati and Google so that all of our posts show up in their search engines somewhere.

I'll also see if I can create some discussion by leaking this blog's address to some people out there who like to debate.