Darwin
Wrong?
| Was Darwin Wrong? |
|
The famous philosopher Karl Popper proposed 'falsifiability' of a
theory as a criterion to distinguish scientific from non-scientific theories. 'Falsifiability'
means that a theory must be able to be refuted by at least some real-life observations.
A falsifiable theory is a scientific theory and an unfalsifiable theory is not a scientific theory at all. Potential falsifiers of neo-Darwinism are seldom published by neo-Darwinists. There should be more interesting and more risky falsifiers than a human fossil in the Cambrian Period! Why don't we read more of them ? Too risky ? Too difficult ? Not interesting enough? Or is neo-Darwinism unfalsifiable? Even when falsifiability is not the only or the best criterion for judging a scientific theory, it is still a powerful criterion. It forces us to specify what things should and should not happen. A good theory should forbid things. If there aren't things that are forbidden, then everything is permitted to happen or to exist. And then we have no scientific theory at all. Well: Michael Behe specifies a few things that exist and should not exist according to his interpretation of neo-Darwinism. Behe assumes neo-Darwinism claims : | |||||
|
|
||||
|
Behe introduced a powerful concept called 'Irreducible Complexity'. It means that all parts
of that system are necessary for the functioning of the whole system.
Concepts are the tools of our thinking. They organise our thinking. Darwin already knew
that complex organs (the eye!) are potential falsifiers of his theory, and had a vague notion
of the idea of 'Irreducible Complexity', but Behe caught it and elaborated it into a great
concept. It is a concept as stimulating as natural selection itself.
An example of irreducible complexity not given by Behe is the interdependence of DNA and
proteins, which results in the famous difficulty of explaining the origin of life.
Maybe all 'irreducible complex' systems are examples of another well known famous problem:
'chicken-and-egg-problems': no chicken without egg, no egg without chicken. It is not right to call 'Irreducible Complexity' just a gap in our knowledge, because a gap in our knowledge can be neutral to a theory, while a potential falsificator is of course negative evidence for a theory. A falsificator is far more stronger than an unexplained phenomenon. Behe does not only philosophise about abstract mousetraps (his metaphor for an irreducible complex system); he gives concrete biochemical examples such as the bacterial flagellum. Behe is trying to elaborate the implications of Darwinian theory of evolution for the biochemistry of the cell. He is a biochemist and his examples are from biochemistry. Every reason to listen to him. He should not be attacked for pointing to possible refutations of neo-Darwinism. If these cases trigger new research, new questions and new answers, then Behe stimulated science. According to Phillip Johnson "Darwin himself established the tradition of explaining away the fossil record" and "The central Darwinist concept that later came to be called the "fact of evolution" -descent with modification- was thus from the start protected from empirical testing" (6). This amounts to saying Darwinists made Darwinism unfalsifiable. However Michael Behe unintentionally shows clearly why Phillip Johnson is wrong in claiming that Darwin and Darwinists created a nonfalsifiable theory! Darwinism is risky! However if scientists claim (as a reaction to Behe) that neo-Darwinism is true and therefore cannot be refuted, then Johnson as yet is right. The lesson is that evolutionary biology needed an outsider (Behe is not within the evolutionary discipline) to come up with a falsificator. Did Behe falsify neo-Darwinism? Well, a mousetrap will not do: is irreducible by definition. Behe needs to demonstrate that a complex biochemical system in all its details is indeed irreducible. All parts must be necessary. Empirical evidence has the last word, not mousetraps (7). If Behe fails to demonstrate Irreducible Complexity, then neo-Darwinism survived another failed falsification, which is the right sort of positive evidence for a theory. It is evidence that counts. Actually the best possible confirmation for any scientific theory! Finally: the fact that Behe proposes 'design' as an alternative explanation, does not affect in the slightest degree the fact that 'Irreducible Complexity' is an interesting falsificator. Even more so are Behe's religious motives irrelevant. Even if Behe's hybrid hypothesis 'design and/or evolution'(4) is unfalsifiable, this does not affect the value of 'Irreducible Complexity' as a falsificator of neo-Darwinism. The value of 'Irreducible Complexity' as a falsificator is logically and factually independent of any alternative hypothesis. |
|||||
| Does Michael Behe have a 'design theory' ? Is 'design' a scientific explanation ? |
Now let's have a look at the 'design'-explanation itself. According to Behe Irreducible Complexity must be determined on a case by case basis. That's fair. However this implies that only irreducible complex things can show evidence of design, not everything. Cilia have been designed; cell membranes arose spontaneously; the beak of the finch evolved by mutation and natural selection. Could that mean that design is another word for 'we-do-not-yet-know-a-natural-explanation' ? What is Behe going to do in his lab when he definitively established that a biochemical system is Irreducible Complex ? If it is designed then further research into the origin must be impossible by definition. Further research, if anything, could only find natural mechanisms. And to find natural causes of a 'designed' system means that it isn't designed anymore. Does that mean that Irreducible Complex systems are not only 'we-do-not-yet-know-a-natural-explanation-systems' but also 'we-do-not-want-to-know-a-natural-explanation-systems' ? |
| 'Design' is scientifically a dead end | 'Design' is a sterile hypothesis. 'Design' is a dead end, because it discourages research into the possible natural mechanisms that could have produced design-like features. And since there is no independent scientific method to know more about the hypothetical designer, we could better study nature directly as it is. |
| Behe's view on 'design' on a case-by-case basis implies a 'Designer of the gaps'. | His conclusion of design is totally dependent on gaps in our knowledge. Design is negatively defined: natural objects with unexplained origins, are designed. In Behe's words: "To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection". (2) Fortunately, as long as there are facts unexplained by science, Behe can claim design. Since science is not finished, new mechanisms will be discovered. So Behe's conclusion is premature. |
| 'Design' does not explain a thing | 'Design' begs the question. Theists feel it explains everything, because they identify 'designer' with the 'Bible-God' and the 'Bible-God' told so much about him/herself in the Bible. However, that's religion, not science. Scientifically 'design' begs the question, because the designer must be irreducible complex. There is no answer to the question 'Where do complex beings and the hypothetical designer come from ?' |
| Creation myth | A refutation of Darwinism is not enough to establish the truth of any religious creation myth. He should have learned from Johnson that the failure of Darwinism never proves the 'Bible-God' or any other religious creation myth. |
| Conclusion |
|
|
|
Darwin's Black Box. The biochemical challenge to evolution.