{"id":1916,"date":"2014-09-26T17:29:00","date_gmt":"2014-09-26T17:29:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/?page_id=1916"},"modified":"2020-05-18T13:09:16","modified_gmt":"2020-05-18T13:09:16","slug":"en13-what-do-mousetraps-flagella-and-blood-clotting-have-in-common","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/?page_id=1916","title":{"rendered":"EN13: What do mousetraps, flagella, and blood clotting have in common?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I have just finished re-reading the marvelously written book, Darwin\u2019s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,<\/em> by Michael Behe, 1996. If you don\u2019t have this book in your library, you simply must get it. Behe is a biochemist by profession, yet writes with perfect clarity for the non-techie. He offers easy-to-understand examples for those who don\u2019t want to go too deep. But for those who enjoy the hairy details, he includes \u201csidebar\u201d sections that should stretch an engineer or scientist . . . at least a little!<\/p>\n

(I\u2019ve summarized some of Darwin\u2019s Black Box<\/em> previously, in Part 6 of my Short Course<\/a>. In this blog I\u2019ll expand on additional points.)<\/p>\n

Behe is one of the luminaries of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. The book makes the case for irreducible complexity, defining that as follows:<\/p>\n

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

The main thesis is that irreducible complexity (IC) is a lethal challenge to Darwin, who famously wrote:<\/p>\n

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.<\/em><\/p>\n

Darwinian evolution, as tweaked in modern times by discovery of DNA and its connection to genetics, depends on numerous slight mods via mutations and natural selection.<\/p>\n

Behe starts with a simple example of IC before launching into biology. Consider the conventional mousetrap. It has 5 critical parts: (1) a wooden base to hold all the parts together in a functional configuration, (2) a metal hammer with which to crush the life out of the poor little mouse, (3) a spring to accelerate the hammer, (4) a sensitive catch which releases the spring\u2019s pent-up energy, and (5) a metal bar that holds the hammer back until sprung.<\/p>\n

It is clear that the trap can\u2019t work without all of the pieces in place. None of the parts can do the job by themselves. There is no trapping function at all unless the system is there at the start. The author points out that there are other kinds of mousetraps, including a glue trap, a box propped up by a stick, and a boy with a BB gun. Yet none of these can possibly be \u201cphysical precursors\u201d \u2013 ancestors \u2013 of the conventional mousetrap. Similarly, you can think of \u201cconceptual precursors\u201d to the space transportation system known as the Space Shuttle. Simpler transport systems could include skateboards, toy wagons, bicycles, autos, biplanes, and jet fighters.<\/p>\n

Yet there is no way that slight modifications to these conceptual precursors could result in a Space Shuttle, all the while maintaining functionality at every step. In the Darwinian analogue, imagine that the skateboard design is stored in a digital file. Random bit flips (mutations) in the file would produce changes in the code that the skateboard factory\u2019s machines use during production. For the skateboard to \u201cevolve\u201d into toy wagons and bicycles, etc., all the while maintaining a viable, marketable product, is impossible . . . and I don\u2019t use the word lightly.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s worse than that. Because along the way to biplanes with internal combustion engines and jet fighters with titanium-bladed turbines, the entire factory has to change! The manufacturing equipment, the raw materials, and the logistical chain for skateboards is nothing like that for F-22 fighters! Behe touches this subject in this book, but treats it in far more detail in his more recent book, The Edge of Evolution<\/em>, 2007, which enjoys the advantage of an additional 11 years of biochemical insights. (In an upcoming blog I\u2019ll discuss that book.)<\/p>\n

Darwin\u2019s Black Box<\/em> points out that the real action in biology . . . and therefore, the real action in evolution . . . must take place at the molecular level. Life depends on the incredibly complex nanomachines (proteins, DNA, RNA), and systems of nanomachines (ribosomes, mitochondria, chromosomes) that enable metabolism, energy production and transfer, muscular contraction, neural processing, etc., to occur . . . moment by moment, year after year.<\/p>\n

Paleontology simply can\u2019t answer the questions. In fact, the fossil record is of no help to evolution whatsoever, displaying overwhelmingly consistent patterns of distinct kinds, well separated in physiology. Other \u201clarge scale\u201d arguments like biogeography and population genetics may be interesting, but simply don\u2019t matter. If you don\u2019t have a theory for evolution at the molecular level, you don\u2019t have a theory of evolution. From Darwin\u2019s time until the 1950s, understanding of biochemistry was rudimentary . . . yet the evolutionary paradigm became firmly entrenched. A fact! Supposedly. Yet without a theory! (And with no empirical observations or laboratory experiments to support the non-theory.)<\/p>\n

Evolutionists talk about \u201csimple\u201d or \u201cprimitive\u201d life forms. Bacteria are at the \u201cbottom\u201d of the complexity hierarchy. Yet some bacteria have a wonderful swimming device, the flagellum, which has no counterpart in more complex creatures. The flagellum is a rotary propeller, whereas the cilium, found in certain types of mammalian cells (discussed in Part 6 of the Short Course), acts as an oar.<\/p>\n

The long, hairlike filament of the flagellum consists of a single type of protein, called \u201cflagellin.\u201d The base connects to a rotor drive via a special protein that hooks it into place. The rotor spins within several concentric rings made of other proteins. Energy is derived from a controlled acid flow through the bacterial membrane. There are at least 40 different kinds of proteins involved in the structure and operation of the flagellum, with all of the nano-structures precisely fitted together for perfect functionality.<\/p>\n

Representing proteins in diagrams is very difficult. Proteins are precisely folded huge molecules, typically with several thousand atoms.<\/p>\n

Note that this marvelous machine is nanotechnology. An outboard motor for your boat is obviously designed, but has nothing near the design sophistication of a flagellum. It is harder<\/strong> to design and build machines at the nano-scale!<\/p>\n

Behe has carefully searched the professional literature on the bacterial flagellum. There are literally thousands of papers detailing research on the structure and function of this biomachine. The subject is important due to medical implications associated with bacteria. Yet \u201cno scientist has ever<\/em> published a model to account for the gradual evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine.\u201d<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t an exception to the rule. Whatever the biological system, at the subcellular level, or the cellular, or at the level of organs . . . the action is at the nanomachine level and there are no scientific papers that even suggest a quantitative model for an evolutionary origin. Behe works through several other examples in his book.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t be gullible. Most get fooled by imaginative non-quantitative stories spun by evolutionists. As a typical case study, Behe discusses the irreducible complexity of the blood clotting system that keeps you and me alive whenever our skin gets cut.<\/p>\n

I won\u2019t try to summarize how blood clotting works. It\u2019s simply too complex a system to be encapsulated in a couple of paragraphs. Read the book. Behe\u2019s \u201cwiring diagram\u201d summarizing the process shows over 30 different types of proteins (or their \u201cactivated\u201d counterparts) which must interact with each other in order to seal a wound. Consider just some of the requirements for this process:<\/p>\n

1. The wound must be detected and the clotting process initiated automatically.
\n2. The clot must occur quickly. (A mesh forms first which then fills in.)
\n3. You don\u2019t want the clot to block any blood vessels.
\n4. You don\u2019t want clots to form during \u201cnormal operation\u201d of the circulatory system.
\n5. Clotting needs to turn off when the job is done.
\n6. Everything must be done without any conscious direction.
\n7. It\u2019s got to work every time!<\/p>\n

Because of the immense importance of blood clotting, the scientific literature is rich. It is vital to understand just how it works. For example, as Behe relates, \u201cThe most common form of hemophilia arises from a deficiency of antihemophilic factor, which helps activated Christmas factor in the conversion of Stuart factor to its active form. Lack of Christmas factor is the second most common form of hemophilia. Severe health problems can also result if other proteins of the clotting pathway are defective . . .\u201d From the \u201cwiring diagram\u201d and the book\u2019s discussion of the process, it is easy to see how messing with any component can destroy the entire process. And so we see that blood clotting is irreducibly complex.<\/p>\n

Behe has found the scientific literature to be void of evolutionary explanations in this field also. The one exception he found was an attempt by a renowned researcher, Russell Doolittle, who attempted to hypothesize a scenario for how one clotting protein after another might have evolved to produce the present-day system. Behe gives Doolittle some credit for daring to try!<\/p>\n

Yet Doolittle\u2019s scenario is \u201call verbal.\u201d He gives no reasons for the appearance of each protein; he makes no effort to estimate any new protein\u2019s properties and . . . most significant . . . he makes no attempt to calculate the probability of a protein\u2019s appearance. (See Part 1 of my Short Course to appreciate the lethal significance of this shortcoming.) No surprise there. Doolittle must be perfectly aware of the impossibilities associated with the \u201csudden appearance\u201d of protein nanomachines.<\/p>\n

Behe reprints Doolittle\u2019s scenario and then comments, \u201cThe first thing to notice is that no causative factors are cited. Thus tissue factor \u201cappears,\u201d fibrinogen \u201cis born,\u201d antiplasmin \u201carises,\u201d TPA \u201csprings forth,\u201d a cross-linking protein \u201cis unleashed,\u201d and so forth. What exactly, we might ask, is causing all this springing and unleashing?\u201d<\/p>\n

Behe goes on to explain . . . with some real numbers . . . how ridiculously improbable such steps are. Doolittle\u2019s explanation is just story-telling. There is no \u201ctheory\u201d proposed. Not even a hypothesis. Why not? Biochemists KNOW that as soon as they write down specific chemical reactions and make quantitative estimates, that there had better be some science supporting them! Some lab experiments, some already established theory . . . something other than story-telling. And so they have nothing to say, beyond the story. Behe likens these flights of imagination to the comic strip adventures of Calvin and Hobbes, in which the principals create adventures without any constraints on reality.<\/p>\n

Behe\u2019s conclusion to this chapter: \u201cNo one on earth has the vaguest idea how the coagulation system came to be.\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll note at this point that Michael Behe is a strong member of the Intelligent Design movement. However, he explicitly denies association with Biblical creationists, as do most of the ID folks. Behe is a Roman Catholic and quite cheerfully accepts the Darwinian idea of \u201ccommon descent.\u201d He scoffs at the Biblical history of Genesis, certain that evolutionary geologists and others must be telling the truth about an Earth history of billions of years. I always find this astonishing. Michael, why not apply your God-given brain power and critical thinking skills to see through the scams in evolutionary geology?<\/p>\n

Back to our analysis . . . The chapter on intracellular transport is quite fascinating. Here\u2019s the problem: \u201cA new protein, freshly made in the cell, encounters many molecular machines. Some of the machines grab hold of the protein and send it along to the location it is destined to reach.\u201d<\/p>\n

An analogy from everyday experience: \u201cAll cargo delivery systems face common problems: the cargo must be labeled with the correct delivery address; the transporter must recognize the address and put the cargo in the correct delivery vehicle; the vehicle must recognize when it has arrived at the right destination; and the cargo must be unloaded. If any of these steps is missing, the whole system fails . . . The entire system must be in place before it works.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of course, a terrestrial logistics system necessitates intelligent (human) intervention at many stages, and even the automated portions must have been designed by engineers who earned at least \u201cB\u201d grades in college. But the intracellular (not to mention inter-cellular) transport systems must be designed for autonomous operations, in billions of cells, for the entire life of the organism. Wow. What a brilliant Creator-Engineer God we have!!!<\/p>\n

Behe points out that 19th century biologists considered the cell to be a \u201chomogeneous globule of protoplasm.\u201d They were wrong. Eukaryotic cells (almost everything except bacteria) are compartmented, with specialized regions that include the nucleus (DNA), the mitochondria (energy production), the endoplasmic reticulum (protein processing), the Golgi apparatus (protein way station during transport), the lysosome (garbage disposal), secretory vesicles (cargo storage), and the peroxisome (metabolizes fats). Compartments are sealed by membranes which must be engineered to let the right things in and out.<\/p>\n

There is much more, of course! Skim a book on cell biology. Behe gets into the details sufficiently to strike awe in the heart and mind of any but the most resolute materialist.<\/p>\n

His conclusion? \u201cAn analysis shows that vesicular transport is irreducibly complex, and so its development staunchly resists gradualistic explanations, as Darwinian evolution would have it. A search of the professional biochemical literature and textbooks shows that no one has ever proposed a detailed route by which such a system could have come to be. In the face of the enormous complexity of vesicular transport, Darwinian theory is mute.\u201d<\/p>\n

I would go much further. There is no theory of evolution.<\/strong> The case for a Designer, a Creator God, is beyond compelling. Look: it\u2019s not merely that biologists haven\u2019t come up with the \u201cright idea\u201d yet. The designs resplendent in life are way beyond the most sophisticated designs ever conceived by man. Any time we observe an element of human technology . . . supercomputers, rocket engines, the internet, cell phone systems . . . there is NO QUESTION about design. Now go several orders of magnitude beyond such levels of sophistication and dare to claim that evolutionists are right, but just haven\u2019t figured out the details yet. Really? The problem is in your heart. That\u2019s why your mind is so dark.<\/p>\n

Behe\u2019s chapter on the immune system is too mind-boggling for summary here. No human engineer would have ever dared to conceive such brilliant complexity. Please read the book. His conclusion? \u201cWe can look high or we can look low, in books or journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.\u201d<\/p>\n

Behe goes on to discuss evolutionary fantasies regarding the origin of the first cellular life, including the initial proteins, RNA, DNA, and other essentials of life. One of his conclusions: \u201cIn private many scientists admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life. On the other hand many scientists think that given the origin of life, its subsequent evolution is easy to envision, despite the major difficulties outlined in this book. The reason for this peculiar circumstance is that while chemists try to test origin-of-life scenarios by experiment or calculation, evolutionary biologists make no attempt to test evolutionary scenarios at the molecular level by experiment or calculation. As a result, biology is stuck in the same frame of mind that dominated origin-of-life studies in the early fifties, before most experiments had been done: imagination running wild. Biochemistry has, in fact, revealed a molecular world that stoutly resists explanation by the same theory so long applied at the level of the whole organism. Neither of Darwin\u2019s starting points \u2013 the origin of life, and the origin of vision \u2013 has been accounted for by his theory.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some comments: Once you reject the Creator God, there is no explanation for the origin of life or, for that matter, any living thing. Behe observed that evolutionists believe that if life could have gotten started, \u201cits subsequent evolution is easy to envision.\u201d Of course this is evolutionary bluster and progaganda, since no one can generate one quantitative model or produce one paper for review that wouldn\u2019t get rejected immediately \u2013 by their own peers.<\/p>\n

No, the alleged evolution from bacteria to invertebrates to reptiles to mammals and birds, etc., is MORE IMPOSSIBLE (Words fail!) than that of the origin of the alleged first bacteria. At every stage, the gulfs of complexity are vast, and must be bridged by multiple irreducibly complex nanomachine systems. The gaps are bigger than those from skateboards to F-22s, or from an abacus to a supercomputer.<\/p>\n

Behe\u2019s final conclusion on the vast scientific output recorded over the last century on this subject: \u201cThere has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.\u201d<\/p>\n

After all this, Behe yet opines that as a Roman Catholic, evolution is quite compatible with his religious views. Wow. Like I said, it\u2019s a heart problem. Behe sees the entire issue as a scientific one. He believes that \u201cthe identity of the designer will simply be ignored by science.\u201d He predicts victory for the ID paradigm because it simply can\u2019t be denied.<\/p>\n

He\u2019s wrong. Truth has always been denied by the determined rebel. The Gospel is not rejected because of its truth. It is rejected because men love darkness and hate light. Willful, unrepentant sinners hate truth. Ultimately, rebels hate God, hate righteousness, and are adamant to exalt self. God\u2019s creation vs. evolutionary naturalism . . . the issue is not settled on the basis of IQ. It is clear that when the heart is determined, the mind will rationalize as much as required.<\/p>\n

Michael Behe, as representative of the entire ID movement, is na\u00efve. He seems to believe that truth will simply prevail . . . \u201cThe reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design that its long, hard labors have made manifest has no justifiable foundation. Scientific chauvinism is an understandable emotion, but it should not be allowed to affect serious intellectual issues. The history of skirmishes between religion and science is regrettable and has caused bad feelings all around. Inherited anger, however, is no basis for making scientific judgments.\u201d<\/p>\n

Really? He calls the evolutionist camp scientific chauvinists (I agree, although the term is too kind), but says their attitude \u201cshould not be allowed.\u201d Just who is not going to allow<\/em> discrimination against intelligent design? Academia is entirely owned by atheists! Faculty members in secular institutions who dare to espouse the truths of either ID or Biblical creation are routinely harassed, denied tenure, or simply fired.<\/p>\n

There is a strong philosophical overlap between academic evolutionary \u201cchauvinism\u201d and Marxism. When Marxists are in control, there is no freedom. The non-lethal \u201cAmerican style\u201d persecution of creationist faculty is well-documented. I have experienced milder aspects myself, when I was the only Biblical creationist on a faculty of 400 at a secular state university. \u201cMild\u201d because the aggravation was only verbal and written (including letters to the local newspaper editor about the embarrassment of a creationist\u2019s presence on campus).<\/p>\n

Behe goes on to say, \u201cThe philosophical commitment of some people to the principle that nothing beyond nature exists should not be allowed to interfere with a theory that flows naturally from observable scientific data. The rights of those people to avoid a supernatural conclusion should be scrupulously respected, but their aversion should not be determinative.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s nice. More \u201cshould be\u201d and \u201cshould not be.\u201d Behe promises to respect the other guys if they would only be so kind as to respect him and his position. It\u2019s just not going to happen. This is spiritual warfare. (By the way, Behe does not offer respect to Biblical creationists.) Of course ID is abundantly evident in biology. But Biblical creation is overwhelmingly demonstrated not only in biology, but also geology, genetics, paleontology, and astronomy.<\/p>\n

The Adversary, however, will never admit it. There are demonic spirits in this world who so effectively corrupt the judgment of so many apparently intelligent people. Those corrupted rule academia, the media, and the government. And so children of yet another generation will be indoctrinated that happenstance is the cause of the brilliance and the beauty of God\u2019s creation. And that happenstance is \u201cfact.\u201d Don\u2019t worry about evidence. There is always another story to spin.<\/p>\n

How about you? I wrote this essay in part because I once was an atheist who had genuine stumbling blocks regarding evolution. When I was confronted with a perspective based on \u201creality,\u201d my mind and heart and conscience had a \u201cBoard Meeting.\u201d Once I realized that the God of the Bible is, in fact, the Lord Jesus Christ revealed in the Bible, I knew I\u2019d be insane to rebel any further. Heart, mind, and conscience got in sync, and I repented from the stupid, vile sins I loved so dearly, and trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior. You can, too.<\/p>\n

You might object, \u201cHow can I be sure that the Creator God is the one in the Bible?\u201d That\u2019s easy. Check out my essay, \u201cHow do I know the Bible is true?\u201d <\/a><\/p>\n

drdave@truthreallymatters.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I have just finished re-reading the marvelously written book, Darwin\u2019s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael Behe, 1996. If you don\u2019t have this book in your library, you simply must get it. Behe is a biochemist by profession, yet writes with perfect clarity for the non-techie. He offers easy-to-understand examples for those […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":147,"menu_order":230,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1916","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1916","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1916"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1916\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3829,"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1916\/revisions\/3829"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/147"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/truthreallymatters.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1916"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}