The Edge of Evolution
My thoughts on Behe’s new book
While on vacation, I decided to read Michael Behe’s new book on Intelligent Design, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. In this book, Behe articulates several high-powered arguments that appear to demonstrate the inability of evolutionary mechanisms (specifically natural selection acting on variation caused by random mutation) to produce complex structures.
Rather than take the typical “all-or-nothing” approach, Behe sets out to critically examine what Darwinian evolution can and can’t do. In fairness, he does not completely discount natural selection and random mutation as powerful evolutionary forces. And neither does he attempt to refute the overwhelming fossil and genetic evidence for common decent. Rather, his goal is simply to demonstrate that there is an inherent limit to just how much biological novelty can reasonably be generated by natural selection acting on the types of genetic variation brought about by random undirected mutation; and that this limit falls woefully short of being able to explain the complex macro-evolutionary “jumps” that Darwinism requires. He has dubbed this limit: The Edge of Evolution.
I can honestly say that I have enjoyed reading this book, but I personally have no idea if Behe’s arguments hold any water. He seems like a smart fellow who knows what he’s talking about. I’ve even corresponded with him personally and found him to be very pleasant and gracious. But the simple fact is, without any professional training in biology or mathematics, I have no way to evaluate the technical merits of his claims. And I’m guessing that 99% of those who read his books are not any better off than me. So whenever I find myself in this situation, I usually concede the technical arguments and focus instead on their logical consequences.
To do this, I only need to ask myself one simple question: if Behe is correct, then what? If the unbroken laws of nature are incapable of producing any biological novelty or complexity by themselves, then what does that tell us about the functional integrity of the world God made? It actually leaves us with a very interesting picture of creation. One in which biological evolution over 3.8 billion years clearly took place by common descent (or as Darwin called it: descent with modification), but since evolution can not be explained by the laws of nature as we currently understand them; the universe actually lacks the capacity to accomplish the will of its creator without periodic intervention - despite God’s meticulous fine-tuning of the cosmos to support life. Does this not sound strange? If it is true, then here are our options:
-
There is some yet unknown material mechanism responsible for earth’s amazing biodiversity.
-
We overcame insurmountable odds and should consider ourselves extremely lucky.
-
Biological evolution is not random or undirected, but is instead the result of a supernatural intelligence who makes periodic adjustments to molecules of DNA throughout the course of natural history.
As you can expect, Behe quickly dismisses option (1) because, according to his analysis of the data, there are absolutely no natural processes capable of directing evolutionary change. He also dismisses option (2) because, according to his (or William Dembski’s) analysis of the data, it is statistically impossible for any complex biological structures to result from the continuous operation of the laws of nature. Therefore, option (3) is the only reasonable choice.
As a Christian Theist who believes that God sustains and governs the entire cosmos moment by moment, I could very easily be drawn into this argument. Several times while reading this book I actually considered jumping on the ID bandwagon. On the surface, it seems that Behe’s analysis supports what we all know to be true from reading the Bible; that God is the creator of all things. After all, if not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from God’s design, then certainly periodic changes to our DNA are on the divine drawing board. And the Bible clearly says that all things, even a roll of the dice, are determined beforehand (Proverbs 16:33). Heck, I’ll even go a step further than Behe and declare that even those single point mutations that might still appear to be “random” or “undirected” from our finite perspective can’t escape God’s providential command. And since all of this is entirely consistent with basic Christian theology, I am naturally very sympathetic to option (3). On the surface, it seems to be the correct theological choice, but is that how we do science? This is where I think many Christians get confused and misled by the ID movement.
If I were a professional biologist, and somebody was paying me to develop a working model of biological change that explains the obvious evidence for common descent in terms of material cause and effect, I would have no choice but to follow my scientific convictions and go with option (1), despite my theological convictions that (3) is also true. Would this make me a confused and conflicted Christian biologist? Would my scientific convictions be at odds with my theological convictions? Not at all! The theological fact that not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from God’s providence shouldn’t preclude a scientific investigation into how the sparrow died, now should it? Nor should the theological fact that every roll of the dice is determined by God negate a scientific study of the mathematical probabilities of seemingly random events. The choice between correct theology and correct science is a false one.
So rather than wallow in my ignorance of how God providentially governs the realm of microbiology, I should pull myself together and write a proposal for another research grant. Why? Because if we havn’t yet identified the material mechanism by which God accomplishes a natural phenomenon, then obviously there is more work to be done! Isn’t that why people go to school and earn PhD’s in the natural sciences - to lift the veil over creation and see the machinery behind the curtain? Since when does a complex scientific question get dismissed with a ”catch-all” theological answer like ”God must have done it” that essentially explains nothing we didn’t already know from Scripture?
I guess this is my essential beef with the ID movement. Not because I don’t believe in creation per se, but because ID doesn’t tell us anything about how God did it! And isn’t the point of science to answer the how questions? After all, we should already know who did it? It’s right there in the first verse of the Bible in case you haven’t noticed! So if ID theory doesn’t tell us anything about God that we didn’t already know, and ID theory can’t tell us anything useful about how nature works, then I guess that makes ID theory completely useless. When will my fellow believers realize this? Of course there will always be aspects of creation that defy our finite ability to explain; but when the scientific trail seems to run cold, all we have really found is the edge of our own ignorance! And another sober reminder that no matter how smart we think we are, we will probably never fully understand the created order.
How to Write an Intelligent Design Best Seller
That is all I have in terms of a semi-serious book review, so now it’s time to have some fun with this. After all, A professional scientist like Behe will sell way more of his books than I will of mine, so perhaps I’m the one who has it wrong? Perhaps ID is the correct way for Christians to approach the study of nature? In fact, just thinking about these things has given me an idea for another ID book.
Why limit the Intelligent Design argument only to the biological sciences? Surely it can be extended to other fields of study, can it not? Let’s see… If there were ever an aspect of creation that continued to defy our pathetic ability to unlock the secrets of nature, surely earth’s weather fits the bill. And the Bible even tells us in Psalm 135:7 that God “makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth; he sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.” So clearly, in addition to occasionally rearranging the base pairs of our DNA , God also tinkers with the weather from time to time. So we seem to have all the ingredients necessary for a bestselling ID book. Game on! Let’s see if this can work.
The tile of this new ID book will be: The Edge of Meteorology: The Search for the Limits of Forecasting. Sound catchy? I think so too.
Let’s start with a patronizing account of what Meteorology can do. It is entirely possible for meteorologists to accurately predict the weather a few hours out. That much we do know. This should suffice to demonstrate that we are not just bashing the science of meteorology outright, but are willing to recognize the few usefull contributions it has made to our short-term understanding of the earth’s weather. In fact, naturalistic models of the earth’s atmosphere are routinely used to make accurate predictions out to about 12 hours. So clearly, the laws of nature (as we currently understand them) are capable of producing some meteorological effects all by themselves. So far, so good.
Now let’s look at what meteorology can’t do. if you go to www.accuweather.com, you will see a 15 day forecast. As an amateur astronomer who plans his life around transparent skies and cloudless nights, I can tell you first-hand that this forecast is crap! In fact, I can make a wild guess as to what the skies will bring 15 days out and get about the same results as the professional meteorologists. And for anything beyond two weeks out: forgettaboutit! Most meteorologists don’t even attempt it. For example, I recall that after the devastating 2005 hurricane season, the 2006 season was projected to be even worse. As it turned out, the 2006 season was a total dud! So clearly, our ability to model the weather using the known laws of nature is severely limited by how far into the future we want to look. And somewhere between these two extremes (the 12 hour forecast and next year’s prediction) lies the edge of meteorology!
Now obviously not everybody will not accept my analysis. Especially those folks who are predisposed to believe, because of their dogmatic adherence to atheism, that the earth’s weather is completely governed by random, undirected, and natural (ie. godless) processes. A quick on-line search clearly demonstrates the “in-your-face” atheism that permeates the meteorological sciences. In fact, there was not even one mention of the Creator in the Wikipedia entry on meteorology or in the one on weather; despite those passages of Scripture that clearly demonstrate God’s total sovereignty over the atmosphere. Apalling! Why not teach the controversy?
My analysis suggests that the vast majority of meteorologists continue to shake their fists at God by promoting a “godless” approach to the atmosphereic sciences that attempts to explain all of the earth’s weather by natural processes acting on geographical differences in temperature (natural thermal variation). And they continue to believe this despite their failure to make accurate long-term predictions! These thermal gradients, according to meteorological theory, can cause changes in the atmosphereic pressure that force large air masses to move from one place to another. The coriolis force induced by the rotation of the earth (which is still being debated in some creationist circles), is also said to influence the paths of these moving air masses, which then combine with moisture that has evaporated from the oceans. According to secular meteorology, these physical variables all interact with one another to produce the complex weather patterns that we observe everyday.
Once again, the proposed material mechanisms of meteorology might be adequate for making extremely short-term predictions. But the inability of atmohsphereic scientists to make accurate long-term predictions based on these mechanisms clearly demonstrates that natural processes alone are incapable of producing complex weather systems. Anything more than about 15 days out has all of the marks of being designed by an intelligent agency. Astronomers don’t seem to have a problem making long-term predictions based on the known laws of nature. In fact, I have a program on my computer called Starry Night that can determine, with absolute precision, the exact location of any heavenly body at any point in time - backwards or forwards! And not just natural objects like planets and moons, but man-made satellites as well. But the long-term behavior of earth’s atmosphere, on the other hand, continues to defy our pathetic attempts to describe it purely in terms of physical cause and effect.
Now some scientists, obviously driven by a dogmatic adherence to atheism, will claim that the edge of meteorology is not a failure of methodological naturalism, but instead demonstrates that some things in nature are too complex for us to fully understand; and since we lack the computing ability to process the enormous amounts of data required to model something as dynamic as the earth’s atmosphere, making accurate long-term predictions is next to impossible. But this is just a secular smoke-screen. If you have any lingering doubts as to how committed these scientists are to their godless ideas, I’ve heard some of them claim that even a tiny butterfly flapping its wings at just the right time and in just the right place can cause entire weather systems to self-organize. Can you believe that? Now that’s just plain silly! How can such a tiny, insignificant, random and undirected event ever create something as complex or destructive as a tornado? Give me a break!
The only logical conclusion here is that the laws of nature acting on natural thermal variation are not able to produce the complex weather patterns we observe in nature. I fully realize that this discovery has the potential to overturn decades of accepted meteorological science. But the inability of these naturalistic atmospheric models to make long-term weather predictions clearly points to an intelligent designer who tinkers with the parameters of earth’s atmosphere! There is simply no other explanation. Could this be any more evident?
So there is my idea for another best-selling ID book. But in order for it to be successful, a real meteorologist will have to write it. It will have much more credibility if someone other than myself, like an insider with good meteorological credentials, takes a critical look a the godlessness that pervades the atmospheric sciences.
-GJG
June 10th, 2007 at 10:37 am
As a Ph.D. Cell Biologist I am qualified to evaluate Behe’s arguemtns and I would strongly recommend Nick Matzke’s review of “The Edge of Evolution”.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/of_cilia_and_si.html
Matzke points out very clearly and with excellent documentation that Behe’s assumption that a cilium cannot be constructed without a complex of proteins known as Intraflagellar transport (IFT) has been known to be untrue since 2004. Any reader can easily find this original paper by Briggs and co-workers by using Google and the search words “Plasmodium” and “Flagella” It is the number two hit!
What makes Behe’s omission of this data so egregious is that this is BIOCHEMISTRY! Others have criticized Behe for his interpretation of math or population genetics but Biochemistry is Behe’s strongpoint. It is how he describes himself. Yet he completely ignores this well documented data because he knows it would completely undermine his idea of irreducible complexity.
Dr. Behe and the IDers portray him as a scholar and rigorous scientist. In my opinion he is neither, and the facts support me.
BTW I also consider myself to be a scientist of faith. I very much agree with your statement “The choice between correct theology and correct science is a false one. “
June 18th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Hi Gordon,
Great analogy. “The onion” did a similar thing with gravity and “Intelligent Falling” a few years back.
Not sure if you’ve seen this before, see:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512. Anyways, when I get to the ID discussion on my blog, I think I’ll point to both this and your post.
June 18th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Just when you think you’re being clever…
Actually, I also found another example of “Intelligent Meteology” a few days ago http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001046.html . The ironic thing is that when I was thinking of how best to satire Behe’s book, I couldn’t decide between using “gravity” or “meteorology” as the subject.
I still enjoyed the book through. In anticipation of his critics, Behe was careful to avoid any indication that the logical conclusion of ID is “divine intervention” or a periodic “tinkering” by the creator. He even uses the phrase that nature could have been “designed to evolve” - in other words, the initial conditions of the cosmic system were chosen precisely so that, once the laws of nature acted upon them, we would end up right where we are today. This supposedly avoids any charge that evolution is “undirected” or “unintelligent.”
Of course, I don’t have a problem with anything in nature being described as “random” or “undirected” because I understand that those words have both scientific/mathematical definitions (man’s perspective), as well as theological/ontological definitions (God’s perspective).
When I roll a pair of dice, the outcome is random and undirected from the standpoint of mathematical probability. The odds of getting a “7″ are no different than getting “snake-eyes”. Now if you want to start waxing theological, then sure: “the lot is cast into the lap, but it’s every descision if from the Lord (Proverbs 16:33). But that doesn’t help us do probability and statistics. Any good scientist, who is also a good Christian, should not be confused by these things.
Talk to you soon!
-GJG
June 18th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
I just realized that I totally gaffed the probabilities in my “dice” analogy.
To roll snake-eyes, you would need a “1″ (P:1/6) and a “1″ (P:1/6) for a 1/36 chance.
To roll a “7″, you either need a “3″ or a “4″ on your first die (P:1/3) but the then must have the complimentary value on the second die (P:1/6) for a 1/18 chance.
So you are actually twice as likely to roll a “7″ than you are to get “snake-eyes” - not that it changes my point, but I like to admit when I make a mistake.
-GJG
June 19th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
hi gordon,
Roll of 7 has 1/6 (6/36) chance (1:6, 2:5, 3:4, 4:3, 5:2, 6:1). Good thing you aren’t a compulsive gambler. :-).
June 19th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Good gosh you’re right. The first die can be anything (P:1) as long as the second is its compliment (P:1/6).
I need to play games more!
-GJG
September 6th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Appreciate all your insights, I came across this post via JOhn Stackhouse’s blog via random surfing.
I have a comment/question about your criticism of ID. It seems to me that the comparison you make with ID and meteorology, or any other natural phenomenon, is not quite fair because creation history is not a natural phenomenon in the same way. The fact that the Bible describes it as an act of God seems to me to put it in the realm of the miraculous, and wouldn’t that possibly rule out scientific explanation of natural phenomenon?
For example, in the parting of the Red Sea, there certainly may have been a process which could be identified through scientific examination, but not necessarily. Could not God have chosen to act above and beyond any natural means? Isn’t that what a miracle is? Or when Jesus multiplied the food to feed the crowd, he could have used some observable biological or chemical process, but couldn’t he just as easily have done an instantaneous miracle that we could never account for, regardless of how much we advance in science?
I understand everyone’s caution in not wanting to simply attribute everything the Bible says to a miracle, and to some it may appear a cop out, but it seems to me that special creation could have been as much an instance of the miraculous as anything.
For the record, I consider myself a young earth creationist, though I’m definitely not fanatical about it. I also appreciate the ID movement and what they’re trying to do, and I certainly respect scientists who are trying to make sense of their discipline as well as Scripture. If I get to heaven and find out I’m wrong, no big deal to me, I don’t think this is one of the more important issues I need to resolve.
But as an engineer turned pastor, I also like to try and make the most sense of what I see, which for now leans towards the young earth. I’m not very well read in the latest research, don’t have much time for that, but I do dabble, so thought I’d comment when I ran across your post. I’d be very interested to hear a response.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Thanks Tony for the note. I first have to say that we all need to keep the Behe family in our prayers. Micheal was unexpectedly hospitalized on Friday, was released Monday, then took a turn for the worse and will now remain in the Hospital for the remainder of the week.
Now to your post. I believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth from nothing, and that He gloriously sustains their very existence moment by moment. In fact, if He were to withdraw Himself from His creation, it would cease to exist.
And so then the next question is, how does God govern His creation? By all appearances, God governs His creation according to his perfect patterns of providence. Scientists like to call them the “laws of nature” - but in an ultimate sense, they are how God interacts with all that He made and sustains.
I think so far you would agree. But since God is God, He obviously doesn’t have to do it this way. He has every right to initiate a sequence of events that would not have otherwise come to fruition “naturally”. You and I both agree on this as well. But when God steps outside of His own system and acts “miraculously”, why does He do it?
In the Bible we see many such miracles and I believe every single one of them is true. But what’s interesting about the Biblical miracles is that they always serve a very public purpose. And that purpose is to display God’s power to His people - so that they are reminded that He is their God and they are His people.
So what then of creation miracles? If God created the universe from nothing, sustains its very existence moment by moment, precisely set all of the constants of nature and finely tuned all physical phenomena to acheive a specific outcome, then what would be the purpose of a creation miracle? We can’t directly observe them? In fact, they all appear to subtly hidden, almost as it to appear naturally. Since we are both engineers, I’ll say this a different way: If God selected the constants, established the initial conditions of the system, wrote the laws that act on the initial conditions, and nothing can interefere with His perfect plan, why would anything creation require a miracle?
Of course, I’ll be the first to admit that none of this reasoning means that it wasn’t a miracle, but only that if God is omnicient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then it didn’t have to be. But if those that science has yet to explain were all accomplished by miracles, why go through the effort to make them look so natural?
This is my problem with Behe’s line of reasoning. I don’t know how familiar you are with his work, but he believes in common descent. In other words, he accepts the geological, geographical, morphological, and genetic lines of evidence that all seem to be telling the same story. However, he wants to use miracles to explains those parts of the story that biologists still struggle with. I just don’t think that is necessary. If this is indeed the way God chose to create, then God must have gifted His creation with the ability to accomplish His will, rather than have to constantly reach down and make genetic adjustments.
So that is basically my take on Behe, and you are right that the analogy is not perfect. But it was an idea I had at the time.
I also want to thank you for having such a balanced view of origins, and for your willingness to listen to others who might not see things exactly the same way. I hope I have answered your question sufficiently.
Take care,
-GJG
September 7th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Thanks for the quick response, wasn’t sure if you wanted to keep this old post so active.
I hear what you’re saying, and I think we would both agree that there’s not overwhelming evidence either way DEMANDING that creation was naturalistic or miraculous. We’re both trying to make inductions about what seems most likely.
Concerning the purpose of miracles, yes, all the other miracles had the purpose of demonstrating something to people, so that purpose obviously wasn’t there for creation. I think we have to conclude that it was a special case of the miraculous, if indeed it was miraculous. I don’t think it would be special pleaiding, either. He had to start somewhere, so no matter what means he used to “develop” the world, the beginning had to be miraculous.
If I understand you correctly, it appears from the evidence that God used naturalistic means, so for us to posit special intervention means we should ask why he did so. My problem is that science is inherently naturalistic, so even if we’re discussing the miraculous, it seems to me science would not have a means to acknowledge it. The most I’ve ever heard is that we don’t know everything, but someday we will. I have a hard time believing that science would ever be able to proclaim something truly miraculous.
So I don’t think the issue is that God did a miracle disguised as something natural, but rather that science can’t acknowledge miracles, so it has to assume naturalistic causes.
I guess it’s similar to that old question about the appearance of age and why would God create things with that “appearance”. So according to my above reasoning, when God created Adam, of course he had the appearance of age because people don’t normally pop out of the womb as adults. My answer would be that God wasn’t specifically trying to mislead us, he simply had to start somewhere, and whatever starting point he chose would of course conform in many ways to the naturalistic process that would follow thereafter. Perhaps not completely, but I think in large part.
Behe has been sitting on my shelf unread for years, so I can’t comment about his work. Another question comes to mind about creation of man? How do you explain how humans arose naturalistically? Excuse my ignorance, but I’m not familiar with how even the ID people explain it.
Thanks, again, for the dialogue.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Tony,
I agree that “we’re both trying to make inductions about what seems most likely.”
I also agree that with respect to the creation of the universe, God “had to start somewhere, so no matter what means he used to “develop” the world, the beginning had to be miraculous.”
Ironically, even the secular cosmologist are baffled by the singularity from which all of time space emerged. Our universe is truly a “cause” that was preceeded by no known effect. Obviously, as Christians, we know that God was behind it all, but such a claim is purely theological, not scientific. All science can do is keep searching for an explanation (one that will probably not ever be found).
Again, we are in agreement when you say the “problem is that science is inherently naturalistic, so even if we’re discussing the miraculous, it seems to me science would not have a means to acknowledge it. The most I’ve ever heard is that we don’t know everything, but someday we will. I have a hard time believing that science would ever be able to proclaim something truly miraculous.”
Science has no way to deal with the miraculous. It can only look at the data and scratch its head. Now there are many things in nature that have no known natural explanation (gravity is one of them). Any one of these could God miraculously interceding, or they could just be due to our lack of knowledge about the world He made. All science can do is keep looking for answers. But since Paul tells us that all of creation declares God’s handiwork, whether a natural explanation exists or not is of no consequence to us, because God is the author of all.
You actually know more about science than 90% of the Christians I talk to. When you say, “…I don’t think the issue is that God did a miracle disguised as something natural, but rather that science can’t acknowledge miracles, so it has to assume naturalistic causes.” you basically sum up the scientific enterprise very nicely. It is limited only to natural cause and effect - those things which can be observed and repeated. Anything supernatural or immaterial has to be handeled differently - with other ways of knowing like theology or philosophy.
I have quite a lengthy discussion about the appearance of age argument in my book, which I hope you will purchase, but you are correct in that there would be know way to tell “authentic” natural history from “apparent” natural history that was made to look authentic. If that were indeed the case, then only He who made the “apparent” look “authentic” could distinguish between the two. This raises many interesting questions about the credibility of the universe God made. It goes far beyond Adam having a navel. The level of deception that God would have built into the universe would actually be similar to creating Adam with very detailed childhood memories that never existed, and then telling him that we created as a young man. But that is another conversation for another day.
For more on the nature of science and the Bible, click the “videos” tab on the top of the page to see my series on this topic.
It was good talking to you,
-GJG