Phillip Kitcher Takes Creationism to Task
*From the archives! You know, I never thought I'd be collecting works written in the college years... these are after all, formative. My first two years at community college produced no significant works, at least according to my records of that time, which are null. This review was written two years ago during my first semester at Wartburg.
By John Franzen
Phillip Kitcher, unsatisfied with Michael Behe's theory of "irreducible complexity", sets out to show the inherent flaws and contradictions contained within the idea that complex structures which are unexplained have no viable predecessors. We compare the possibilities held by the theories of evolutionary theory and born again creationism. Behe's theory of born again creationism is a product of centuries of scientific rebuttal and response from supporters of design, and while it addresses some advances in science, it still considers what is unknown to science as God. Behe laces his writing with what Kitcher admits is as times "charming", but lacking in direct evidence supporting his theory of irreducible complexity or ruling out evolutionary theory.
Giving examples of the misunderstandings of scientific laws held by many creationists, Kitcher criticizes Behe and other's attacks as, "the plundering of debates in evolutionary theory, that can be usefully separated from their context."(p. 466). He also makes it very clear that Behe is continually on the attack, never ceding any ground nor giving an explanation, as this is what works best for the argument that he is proposing. Kitcher, however, proposes the possibility of alternatives to Behe's theory of irreducible complexity. By doing this, he shows that what we do not know now in science is not equivalent with a lack of pathways to understanding things. For the unknown it is always possible to develop alternative theories, which have the ability to potentially all be equally valid.
Kitcher first considers the link between Behe's form of born again creationism and literalism. In what some believers of the Christian faith would consider a cop out, Behe rejects literalism in favor of a dualistic point of view in which diversity is not explained by natural selection, but rather but an intervention of God. By doing so, he avoids the many traps that literalists fall into. First, Kitcher explains the traps that literalists face and considers reasons that the mainstream movement for intelligent design has abandoned literalism.
Kitcher cites an early opponent of the movement for evolutionary theory that was ignited in the mid- 1980's, Duane Gish. The strategy developed was one of constant attack, by pointing to holes in evolutionary theory Gish quickly satisfied his point. For if evolutionary theory did not contain answers to his points, creationism was there with answers to every one of them. This aggressive approach to debate for some time ran into little resistance, but overtime advocates for evolutionary theory evolved. They proposed that a literal interpretation of the bible was not compatible with what we see in both living and fossilized plants and animals.
Consider the story of the Flood and Noah's Ark. We are also assuming that the earth was created around ten thousand years ago, as a literalist would. Kitcher asks if these accounts are true explanations, how are we to explain dramatic differences in the fossil record from what is proposed to us? A literalist may retort that what we see is so because of the relative position of plants and animals during the time of the Flood. Kitcher points to discrepancies in the fossil record. Obviously, according to what we know, the further down the fossil is, the earlier it was alive. We can by this alone render literalism faulty, yet Behe will go on to say that the fossil record is of no matter.
A common theme of evolutionary theory has always been that constituents of a cell, a tissue, or an organism, are put to new uses because of some modification of genotype. Consider the similarities in anatomy among species. For example, in human beings, parts of what we consider to be "junk" DNA resemble truncated(mutilated) versions of similar DNA found in other animals. In fact, the genetic sequence of all living things is so similar that a human sequence was identified as implicated in colon cancer by recognizing it's similarity to a gene coding for a DNA repair enzyme in yeast. In light of these facts and similar problems for the literalist, Behe has abandoned the original model of creationism in favor of a theory that accepts certain truths and allows for an element of design. (He briefly mentions that this theory has drawn praise from, for example, Alvin Plantinga, whom he suggests with his obsession with creationist doctrine and ignorance of relevant biology has, similarly to Behe, put his brain in "cold storage".)
According to Behe, the diversity seen in life is not explained by natural selection, nor does he consider a speciation and evolution of animals over time by natural occurrences. According to his theory of irreducible complexity, the structures which function specifically in an organism are much too complicated to have occurred by chance, and as such needed an intervener to put them together or, an agent of design. More importantly, by admitting that certain living things have changed over time, this agent of design would have not only started the process of change in motion, but he would have been in the process continually in order to assure transformation.
When confronted with an unexplainable problem, most scientists would proclaim that further research was called upon. Behe, however, instead opts to answer this call with a claim of his irreversible complexity. In response to the idea that something could be, "irreversibly complex", Kitcher proposes an alternative showing that what Behe has posited impossible is simply an appeal from ignorance, the same as anyone studying the unknown could have from any possible angle. Evolutionary theorists cannot answer questions about cilia or flagellum, but neither can Behe.
For example, let us look at a cell that is lacking a flagellum. We can suppose that while all proteins necessary which would constitute a cell that had a flagellum were there, there was some sort of formation inhibiting the cell chemistry and consequent reaction which builds the flagellum. Let's suppose a genetic change removes this interference, perhaps by changing the shape of a protein and allowing a pathway for the process to occur. Certainly this is plausible, and as an alternative to Behe's theory it proves that what Behe considers irreducible complexity as proof of God, is actually just an open problem that may be solved from extended research.
In essence, Behe argues that precursors and intermediaries required by the the Darwinian evolutionary theory couldn't have exist. According to Kitcher this theory has to fail as he himself is just as ignorant about the molecular basis of development as his Darwinian opponents. But giving Behe the benefit of the doubt, Kitcher allows room for proposals as to how God would transcend himself and mediate these molecular changes, and lists three possible routes for God to take.
One, God arranges for evolutionary changes to take place, by ensuring a route that will lead to what his eventual goals are and eliminating useless proteins and other structures. He directs every mutation piece by piece. Kitcher wonders why a God with the power to create prefers natural selection rather than simply producing the types of mutations he envisions all at once. Two, God stimulates mass mutations at certain times, allowing for changes to occur that allow an organism to remain viable. Why would he do this instead of simply creating the organisms that he is looking for? Three, God created all organisms as they are. But he leaves in them genomic junk with organisms he's created earlier. This appears to be a poor method of architecture.
Kitcher concludes that in fact he has not necessarily been advocating evolutionary theory, rather only debunking Behe's born again creationism. Admitting that there are still numerous steps in determining what specifically we can use as alternatives to "irreducible complexity", he believes he has shown what is sufficient and necessary to determine that new proposals which outweigh both the current evolutionary theory and born again creationism must be discovered. However, the possibility of a Deity as an intermediary to him is inferior to the evolutionary stand point, and as such he does not expect that the answers to what Behe has called irreducible complexity is will have any association with the proclamation of Design by a deity, as proposed by Behe and others.
But Kitcher isn't the only person to show Behe's ignorance of what he is talking about. For example, in 2005 the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was brought before Judge John E. Jones, a conservative appointed under Bush. The Dover area school distract had enforced a passage to be read to students stating that although intelligent design was not going to be taught, it was a reasonable alternative to evolutionary theory. Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and after the presentation of his scientific theory, Judge Jones has this to say, "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Thank you for the testimony Michael Behe.
Behe also refers to the complexity of the blood clotting mechanism as an example of irreducible complexity. But in 2003 R.F. Doolittle showed that while puffer fish lack three out of 26 mechanisms related to blood clotting, their systems are still able to do so. This goes to refute the claim of Behe of blood clotting as irreducibly complex.
Robert Pennock proclaims that both religion and science deserve better than Behe's incoherent concepts. Finally, a quote from Richard Dawkins on Behe's theory, in which he attacks Behe for hiding his religious agenda within veiled arguments,
"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)…point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is…maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder."
"Richard Dawkins on Evolution and Religion". Think Tank on PBS. November 8, 1996. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/thinktnk.shtml. Retrieved 6 Dec 2009.
Robert T. Pennock (2001). "Whose God? What Science? Reply to Michael Behe". National Center for Science Education. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/pennock_behe.html. Retrieved 2008-09-27
Vickers, Brett. "Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court." The Talk Origins Archive. 31 Dec 2005. Talk Origins Archive, Web. 6 Dec 2009. .
Jiang Y and Doolittle R.F. (2003). "The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes.". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (13): 7527-7532.
By John Franzen
Phillip Kitcher, unsatisfied with Michael Behe's theory of "irreducible complexity", sets out to show the inherent flaws and contradictions contained within the idea that complex structures which are unexplained have no viable predecessors. We compare the possibilities held by the theories of evolutionary theory and born again creationism. Behe's theory of born again creationism is a product of centuries of scientific rebuttal and response from supporters of design, and while it addresses some advances in science, it still considers what is unknown to science as God. Behe laces his writing with what Kitcher admits is as times "charming", but lacking in direct evidence supporting his theory of irreducible complexity or ruling out evolutionary theory.
Giving examples of the misunderstandings of scientific laws held by many creationists, Kitcher criticizes Behe and other's attacks as, "the plundering of debates in evolutionary theory, that can be usefully separated from their context."(p. 466). He also makes it very clear that Behe is continually on the attack, never ceding any ground nor giving an explanation, as this is what works best for the argument that he is proposing. Kitcher, however, proposes the possibility of alternatives to Behe's theory of irreducible complexity. By doing this, he shows that what we do not know now in science is not equivalent with a lack of pathways to understanding things. For the unknown it is always possible to develop alternative theories, which have the ability to potentially all be equally valid.
Kitcher first considers the link between Behe's form of born again creationism and literalism. In what some believers of the Christian faith would consider a cop out, Behe rejects literalism in favor of a dualistic point of view in which diversity is not explained by natural selection, but rather but an intervention of God. By doing so, he avoids the many traps that literalists fall into. First, Kitcher explains the traps that literalists face and considers reasons that the mainstream movement for intelligent design has abandoned literalism.
Kitcher cites an early opponent of the movement for evolutionary theory that was ignited in the mid- 1980's, Duane Gish. The strategy developed was one of constant attack, by pointing to holes in evolutionary theory Gish quickly satisfied his point. For if evolutionary theory did not contain answers to his points, creationism was there with answers to every one of them. This aggressive approach to debate for some time ran into little resistance, but overtime advocates for evolutionary theory evolved. They proposed that a literal interpretation of the bible was not compatible with what we see in both living and fossilized plants and animals.
Consider the story of the Flood and Noah's Ark. We are also assuming that the earth was created around ten thousand years ago, as a literalist would. Kitcher asks if these accounts are true explanations, how are we to explain dramatic differences in the fossil record from what is proposed to us? A literalist may retort that what we see is so because of the relative position of plants and animals during the time of the Flood. Kitcher points to discrepancies in the fossil record. Obviously, according to what we know, the further down the fossil is, the earlier it was alive. We can by this alone render literalism faulty, yet Behe will go on to say that the fossil record is of no matter.
A common theme of evolutionary theory has always been that constituents of a cell, a tissue, or an organism, are put to new uses because of some modification of genotype. Consider the similarities in anatomy among species. For example, in human beings, parts of what we consider to be "junk" DNA resemble truncated(mutilated) versions of similar DNA found in other animals. In fact, the genetic sequence of all living things is so similar that a human sequence was identified as implicated in colon cancer by recognizing it's similarity to a gene coding for a DNA repair enzyme in yeast. In light of these facts and similar problems for the literalist, Behe has abandoned the original model of creationism in favor of a theory that accepts certain truths and allows for an element of design. (He briefly mentions that this theory has drawn praise from, for example, Alvin Plantinga, whom he suggests with his obsession with creationist doctrine and ignorance of relevant biology has, similarly to Behe, put his brain in "cold storage".)
According to Behe, the diversity seen in life is not explained by natural selection, nor does he consider a speciation and evolution of animals over time by natural occurrences. According to his theory of irreducible complexity, the structures which function specifically in an organism are much too complicated to have occurred by chance, and as such needed an intervener to put them together or, an agent of design. More importantly, by admitting that certain living things have changed over time, this agent of design would have not only started the process of change in motion, but he would have been in the process continually in order to assure transformation.
When confronted with an unexplainable problem, most scientists would proclaim that further research was called upon. Behe, however, instead opts to answer this call with a claim of his irreversible complexity. In response to the idea that something could be, "irreversibly complex", Kitcher proposes an alternative showing that what Behe has posited impossible is simply an appeal from ignorance, the same as anyone studying the unknown could have from any possible angle. Evolutionary theorists cannot answer questions about cilia or flagellum, but neither can Behe.
For example, let us look at a cell that is lacking a flagellum. We can suppose that while all proteins necessary which would constitute a cell that had a flagellum were there, there was some sort of formation inhibiting the cell chemistry and consequent reaction which builds the flagellum. Let's suppose a genetic change removes this interference, perhaps by changing the shape of a protein and allowing a pathway for the process to occur. Certainly this is plausible, and as an alternative to Behe's theory it proves that what Behe considers irreducible complexity as proof of God, is actually just an open problem that may be solved from extended research.
In essence, Behe argues that precursors and intermediaries required by the the Darwinian evolutionary theory couldn't have exist. According to Kitcher this theory has to fail as he himself is just as ignorant about the molecular basis of development as his Darwinian opponents. But giving Behe the benefit of the doubt, Kitcher allows room for proposals as to how God would transcend himself and mediate these molecular changes, and lists three possible routes for God to take.
One, God arranges for evolutionary changes to take place, by ensuring a route that will lead to what his eventual goals are and eliminating useless proteins and other structures. He directs every mutation piece by piece. Kitcher wonders why a God with the power to create prefers natural selection rather than simply producing the types of mutations he envisions all at once. Two, God stimulates mass mutations at certain times, allowing for changes to occur that allow an organism to remain viable. Why would he do this instead of simply creating the organisms that he is looking for? Three, God created all organisms as they are. But he leaves in them genomic junk with organisms he's created earlier. This appears to be a poor method of architecture.
Kitcher concludes that in fact he has not necessarily been advocating evolutionary theory, rather only debunking Behe's born again creationism. Admitting that there are still numerous steps in determining what specifically we can use as alternatives to "irreducible complexity", he believes he has shown what is sufficient and necessary to determine that new proposals which outweigh both the current evolutionary theory and born again creationism must be discovered. However, the possibility of a Deity as an intermediary to him is inferior to the evolutionary stand point, and as such he does not expect that the answers to what Behe has called irreducible complexity is will have any association with the proclamation of Design by a deity, as proposed by Behe and others.
But Kitcher isn't the only person to show Behe's ignorance of what he is talking about. For example, in 2005 the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was brought before Judge John E. Jones, a conservative appointed under Bush. The Dover area school distract had enforced a passage to be read to students stating that although intelligent design was not going to be taught, it was a reasonable alternative to evolutionary theory. Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and after the presentation of his scientific theory, Judge Jones has this to say, "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Thank you for the testimony Michael Behe.
Behe also refers to the complexity of the blood clotting mechanism as an example of irreducible complexity. But in 2003 R.F. Doolittle showed that while puffer fish lack three out of 26 mechanisms related to blood clotting, their systems are still able to do so. This goes to refute the claim of Behe of blood clotting as irreducibly complex.
Robert Pennock proclaims that both religion and science deserve better than Behe's incoherent concepts. Finally, a quote from Richard Dawkins on Behe's theory, in which he attacks Behe for hiding his religious agenda within veiled arguments,
"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)…point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is…maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder."
"Richard Dawkins on Evolution and Religion". Think Tank on PBS. November 8, 1996. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/thinktnk.shtml. Retrieved 6 Dec 2009.
Robert T. Pennock (2001). "Whose God? What Science? Reply to Michael Behe". National Center for Science Education. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/pennock_behe.html. Retrieved 2008-09-27
Vickers, Brett. "Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court." The Talk Origins Archive. 31 Dec 2005. Talk Origins Archive, Web. 6 Dec 2009. .
Jiang Y and Doolittle R.F. (2003). "The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes.". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (13): 7527-7532.