A
Black Box or a Black Hole?
A
Response to Michael Behe
Denis O. Lamoureux
St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta
(Published in Canadian Catholic Review July 1999:67-73)
It
is indeed a pleasure to review Dr. Michael J. Behe's
paper 'Design vs. Randomness
in Evolution: Where Do the Data Point?' (1) He
is a personal friend whose strong Christian
faith has encouraged me and his scholarship
in the origins debate has sharpened my understanding
of these complex issues.
We both agree
that the complexity in nature as seen through the science of biology
points to an Intelligent Designer. Different versions of this
'argument from design' are seen throughout Church
history and these provide some of the strongest rational arguments for
the existence of God.(2)
We also agree that the complexity in biology is
not, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger states in 1986, "the product of
chance and error." Finally,
we both recognize that biological evolution or
common descent is not necessarily inimical to the Christian faith and
we resonate fully with
Pope John Paul II's 1996 statement that evolution
is "more than
a hypothesis."
It must be pointed
out to Roman Catholic readers that Behe has become internationally known for
his book Darwin's Black Box (1996), in particular in protestant fundamentalist
and evangelical circles. During this century, these Christian traditions in
North America have been characterized by their firm anti-evolutionary stance,
which is by and large due to their very literal reading of the opening chapters
of the Bible. Behe's book has become central to fundamentalist and evangelical
critiques against biological evolution, and he has emerged as the leading scientific
figure in so-called 'Intelligent Design' movement. It is interesting to note
that ID theorists are mostly evangelicals and fundamentalists and typically
they do not accept biological evolution. So why is a Roman Catholic like Behe
who accepts the recent papal affirmation of evolution so popular in these circles?
First, Behe openly
criticizes Charles Darwin's views on the origin of life.
In the fundamentalist and evangelical world, Darwin has been demonized because
his theory of evolution threatens their literal interpretation
of the early
chapters in the Book of Genesis. Moreover, these Christians
have misrepresented Darwin's views as being entirely dysteleological. That
is, Darwinian evolution
is interpreted as being an entirely chance or random
process, a view of origins that no Christian can accept. Behe supports this
interpretation in his paper
by claiming that 'random variation' is the mechanism
that drives Darwinian evolution. However, Behe and these Protestants are simply
not familiar with
the historical record. This atheistic view of evolution
was never Darwin's position. Seven times in his famed On the Origin of
Species (1859) he refers
to a Creator in a positive and supportive context.(3)
For example, Darwin asserts, "To my mind it accords better with what we
know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and
extinction of the past and
present inhabitants of the world should have been due
to secondary causes like those determining the birth and death of an individual."(4)
Only a few years before his death, Darwin admits that he "had never been
an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God."(5) More anon
regarding Darwin's actual views.
More importantly,
Behe's popularity in Christian fundamentalism and evangelicalism is due to
the antievolutionism expressed in his book Darwin's
Black Box. This is also
seen in his paper when he states that so-called 'irreducibly complex' structures
like cilia "can't be put together in the gradual fashion Darwin anticipated
because they only function when the system is essentially complete." In
his book, Behe defines this concept of irreducible
complexity, which he coined:
By
irreducibly complex I mean
a single system composed ofseveral well-matched,
interacting
parts that
contribute to the basic
function, wherein the removal of
any one of the parts causes the system to
effectively cease
functioning. An irreducibly
complex system cannot be produced
directly (that is, by continuously improving
the initial
function, which continues to work
by the same mechanism) by slight, successive
modifications of a precursor system, because
any precursor to an irreducibly
complex system that is missing a
part is by definition nonfunctional.
An irreducibly complex biological
system, if there is such a thing, would be
a powerful challenge
to Darwinian evolution.
Since natural selection can
only choose systems that are already
working,
then if a biological
system cannot be produced
gradually
it would have to arise as an integrated
unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection
to have anything
to act on. (6)
As
a result, if certain biological structures can only be brought
into existence by "one fell swoop," then there must be
Behe
has been cautious in not committing himself to the view
that God intervenes directly into nature to create these purportedly
irreducibly
complex structures.
However, in Darwin's Black Box, he speculates in one brief
passage that Divine intervention might have resulted in the direct
creation
of a cell
from which
all of life evolved:
The
irreducibly complex biochemical systems that
I have discussed
in this book did not have to be produced recently.
It is entirely possible,
based
simply
on an examination of thesystems themselves, that
they were designed billions of years ago and that they
have been passed down to the present by thenormal processes
of cellular reproduction. Perhaps a speculative scenario will illustrate
the point. Suppose that nearly four billion years
ago the designer made the first cell already
containing all of the irreducibly complex
biochemical
systems discussed here and many others. (One can
postulate that the
designs for systems
that were to be used later, such as blood clotting,
were present but not "turned
on." In present-day organisms plenty of genes
are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations,
to be
turned on at a later
time.)
Additionally,
suppose the designer placed enough evidence to conclude
some design. The cell containing the designed systems
then was left on autopilot
to reproduce, mutate,
eat and be eaten, bump against rocks, and suffer
all the vagaries of life on earth. (7)
Understandably,
fundamentalists and evangelicals have quickly grabbed
hold of Behe's notion
of irreducible complexity
and the necessity
of Divine
direct intervention to affirm of their interventionistic
view of God's creative
method. That is, these Christians only understand the
creation of life through dramatic
miraculous acts. Of course, for those familiar with Darwin's
actual views, the irony of Behe's first cell thesis is
that a similar view
of life's
origin is found in The Origin of Species! In the famed
last sentence of the 1859
book Darwin writes, "There is grandeur in this view
of life, with its several powers, having been originally
breathed into a few forms or into one; and that,
whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the
fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless
forms most beautiful and most wonderful
have been, and are being, evolved."(8)
But what
are we to make of Behe's assessment of the scientific data
and his theory about how irreducibly complex structures were created? To be
sure,
in contrast to most of the ID theorists, he is a well-trained
scientist specializing in biochemistry. His book accurately reports the amazing
and God glorifying
complexity of the cell. In addition, Behe is correct to
point out
that modern science has yet to reveal how the biomolecules
and the cell have
evolved.
Early
attempts to explain this part of evolution have been dismissed
by the scientific community. But the vital question that must be asked is,
'Does not being
able to explain how these complex structures arose reflect
a black box in which
God intervenes or a black hole in our knowledge?' Stated
another way, is the creation of an original first cell a true and real 'gap'
within
the usually continuous
economy of
the laws of nature needing the intervening hand of God?
Or, is Behe's position just another example of the problematic 'God-of-the-gaps'
position
in which
'gaps' are only gaps in our knowledge that will be filled
by the advancing light of science?
I have two concerns
with regard to Behe's thesis for the creation of irreducible structures in 'one
fell swoop.' First, before Christians come to claim
publicly the existence of any miraculous intervention during
the course of geological
time, it behooves them to be certain lest they embarrass
the Church by rash and intellectually (in this case scientific) unsubstantiated
claims.
I am
more than uncomfortable with the assertions of a single
man, the biochemist Behe.
Such claims should at the very least be done in a community
of biochemists. I know a number of professional biochemists, including many devout
Christians,
and their assessment of Behe's 'one fell swoop' thesis
is quite negative.
Second, it must be underlined that the theory of evolution was built on
the fossil record of tissues and not biomolecular structures.
The reason for
this is that biomolecular structures like Behe's often-used
example of cilia are
too small to be fossilized. As a result, Behe and biochemists
like him are at a disadvantage in attempting to reconstruct evolutionary precursors
in
that they simply do not have a biomolecular fossil record
from which to
work. In
contrast, large and hard tissues like bones and teeth
can easily be fossilized and preserved as the geological record reveals. Let
me offer an example
from my biological specialty (the development and evolution
of teeth and jaws)
to help explain the problem biochemists like Behe have
in understanding biochemical evolution. If I were given only a modern human
dentition, and
I was not aware
of the fossil record for the evolution of teeth and jaws,
then I cannot imagine how I could ever come up with the series of dental precursors
which
is known
today from the fossils. This is the very problem Behe
and the biochemists face
in determining biochemical precursors. They only have
the modern form of cilia before them and no fossil cilia to aid in determining
the series
of stages
that this biomolecular structure passed through in its
evolution.
Undoubtedly,
the utterly complexity of biomolecules and the limits
of human imagination may prove to be factors
that may leave this aspect of evolutionary
theory open ended and unknown. On the other hand, and
I suspect this will probably be the case as history reveals,
the gap in the knowledge of biomolecular
evolution
will be closed. To be sure, this will be quite a complex
story, and undoubtedly a new chapter in the design argument.
However, if Behe is right, and there
was in the distant past a Divine 'one fell swoop' intervention
for the creation of the first cell, then he will go down
in history and
take
his place along side
the scientific
stalwarts
like Galileo, Newton and Einstein (and I will burn this
paper, and then boast to my grandchildren he was a good
friend!). If such a
gap truly
exists, then
further research will only "widen" the gap
supporting the necessity of intervention from outside
the natural
causal nexus of
the universe.
However, to repeat, history does not offer one example
of such a gap. Rather, the historical
record reveals that the many gaps which have been proposed
have all been closed by the advance of science and a
fuller understanding
of nature.
I have with interest followed the development of the
Intelligent Design movement over the last five years.
They claim to be in the process of creating
and
ushering in what they term is 'theistic science.' Behe's
work is the scientific centerpiece
in their program. However, the greatest problem with
this movement is that it never clearly defines 'theistic
science' or does it offer a model of
origins. For that matter, ID theorists hold a variety
of differing and contradictory
views, and there is even evidence of significant shifts
in their positions during the short time the movement
has existed (9). Behe's views are an
example. As noted in his paper in this journal and his
book Darwin's Black Box, he
accepts so-called 'Irreducible complexity,' and this
feature seems to appear in the
world through some extraordinary event other than a slow
and gradual process like evolution. It is because of
this interventionism and antievolutionism
that his work has gained acclaimed in evangelical and
fundamentalist circles.
But in following Behe's writings and a number of personal
conversations with him I began to wonder what he really
believes.
In preparing for this review of Behe's paper, I asked
him to elaborate on his notion of the first cell created
by "one fell swoop," or
the 'super cell' as some of his colleagues have referred
to it. Dr. Behe answered me directly,
and he has even graciously permitted me to quote this personal
response in my paper. He writes,
I
do not think there had to be a 'super cell.' ID is
compatible with a lot of different
scenarios for how
the information was placed into the
system.
It could have been present in the initial conditions
of the Big Bang or added over time somehow. I mentioned
the 'super cell' in my book not to
endorse
it, but simply to show that the issue of the age
of biochemical systems is different
from the issue of how they got here. My official
position is agnostic: I think we don't have enough
information
yet to decide how the design was
implemented.
We do, however, have enough evidence in the ID view
to decide that explicit design occurred,
and that the random
processes envisioned by Darwinism
can't cut it. (10)
A
number of significant points are made in this is
a remarkable passage. First, Behe continues to maintain that
a dysteleological (or random) view of evolution cannot
account for the
origin of life. I agree with him. He
again
suggests that this view of life's origin was Darwin's
position. However, as noted previously, this is not
the historical record because Charles
Darwin openly admitted that he never held such a
position.
Second,
note that Behe strays from his notion of irreducible
complexity. Recall that an irreducibly complex biomolecular
structure "can't be put together
in the gradual fashion Darwin anticipated because they
only function when the system is essentially complete;" as
a result, since "a biological
system cannot be produced gradually it would have to
arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop." However,
Behe's "official position is agnostic "on
how this ID (intelligent design) or irreducible complexity
arises in living systems. In other words, Behe's
position is not that of
the
interventionism expressed in Darwin's Black Box.
Proof that Behe's book is interventionistic
and antievolutionary is the fact that it is today
the most important book on
the topic of origins in the fundamentalist and evangelical
world--a religious tradition characterized by interventionistic
creationism
and antievolutionism.
Third, note that Behe even speculates that ID could
have been implemented in the Big Bang. If this is indeed
the
case, then he truly betrays
the concept of irreducible complexity. By definition,
irreducibly complex biomolecular structures cannot
be put together
one piece at a time
through
a gradual
process.
Irreducible complexity can only come about through "one fell swoop" acts
during the course of time, and not at the very beginning
of time. Behe's shift in the direction of a full
evolutionary theory not requiring
interventions during the history of life is characteristic
of many who have gone before
him
in that the gaps they once believed existed in nature
are only gaps in their knowledge. Suggesting that
intelligent design could have
been
loaded
in the
initial conditions of the Big Bang is evidence that
the
gaps are closing in Behe's view of origins, and that
he is coming to terms
with biological
evolution.
To close, it is always
a pleasure to interact with my good friend Dr. Behe. I have always enjoyed
our exchanges
and viewed them in the proverbial context
(Prov 27:17) of iron sharpening iron, even
with the occasion spark! I believe that his black box
thesis
is
in reality a black hole or gap in
our
knowledge,
which as history reveals will be filled through
the findings of modern science. My respectful suggestion
to Dr. Behe
is to return to the Mother
Church's
view of biological origins and leave behind the
interventionism and antievolutionism of protestant evangelicalism
and fundamentalism.
_______________
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Susan and Larry Martin for their insightful comments in
reading this paper.
1.
Michael J. Behe, "Design vs. Randomness in Evolution:
Where to the Data Point?" Canadian Catholic Review (July 1998),
pp. 63-66.
2. For example, even Charles Darwin acknowledged "the extreme difficulty
or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wondrous universe,
including man with his capacity of looking backwards and far into futurity,
as the result of blind chance or necessity." Charles Robert Darwin,
The
Autobiography of Charles Darwin: 1809-1882. Nora Barlow, editor (London:
Collins, 1958), p. 92.
3. Charles Robert Darwin, On the Origin of Species. A Facsimile Edition
of the first edition, Ernst Mayr, editor (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press), pp. 186, 188, 189, 413 (twice), 435 and 488.
4. Ibid., p. 488.
5. Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (London: John
Murray, 1888), I:304.
6. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge
to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996), p. 39. My italics.
7. Ibid., pp. 227-228.
8. Origin of Species, p. 490.
9. Please see an example of this intellectual shifting in my response
to the Intelligent Design movement's leader Phillip E. Johnson entitled, "The
Gaps Are Closing: The Intellectual Evolution of Phillip E. Johnson," in
Phillip E. Johnson and Denis O. Lamoureux, Darwinism Defeated? The
Johnson- Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Vancouver, B.C.: Regent
College Press, 1999).
10. Michael J. Behe to Denis O. Lamoureux, E-mail correspondence 23 April
1999. Reproduced with the permission of Michael J. Behe 24 April 1999.
HOME
PAGE MAIN MENU PUBLICATIONS
MENU
|