Please forgive me if you are already tired of this subject. But I just received a comment from a friend of mine from an old post that does not deserve to be buried in the comment archives of last November. Gary is a well read and articulate thinker and his response deserves a post on this site. I do not agree with every thing he says, but as Voltaire famously said: “I will defend to the death his right to say it.” I consider myself fortunate to work in such an intellectually stimulating environment, I learn something new everyday. Here is Gary’s (unedited) comment:
I have just been made aware of this site and as I am a colleague of Steve’s on the other side of the debate I would like to enter in.
First, let me state that I have no firm conviction on the existence of a Creator, although I lean to atheism. There are questions which cannot be currently answered by science. Some cannot be answered because we have not had the time, or the resources or the theoretical understanding to deal with them or even to formulate them. Most of these will with time and effort yield, but the existence of a Creator is unlikely to, so we should be each free to come to our own conclusions: but certainly you cannot use science at this time to justify an answer either way.
Behe’s ideas fall into the realm of the miraculous (and I did read the book, Steve, when you lent it to me) although he is knowledgable enough in the science. His ideas are miraculous simply because they indicate that there are complex entities which cannot be explained in terms of simpler ones. The philosophy of science is that all problems are in principle explicable with time and effort, including biochemical ones. Thus a scientist is not likely to like Behe’s approach for philosophical reasons: it would close off so many avenues of research. That, of course, would not matter if Behe were right and some processes are irreducibly complex. But it is actually fairly simple to find explanations on the internet for the processes he sites. I give you here the website of Kenneth Miller (I am sure you will recognize the name, but you shouldn’t be deterred by him being a strong opponent of ID – he is after all a strong Catholic Christian as well). His explanation for a possible evolutionary development of the Clotting Cascade (which you like to cite) is clear and comprehensible: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
Keep in mind that to refute the idea irreducible complexity all that is logically needed is a feasible pathway based in current knowledge of biochemistry and genetics: the exact pathway will never be known.
As to probabilities, the calculations as presented are not correct or applicable. The most unlikely event in the whole process is the original synthesis of a self-replicating molecule from precursors. However, in a large “soup” of small molecules, given the chemical bonding rules as we know them and chemical energetics sooner or later a molecule would be built – it wouldn’t require all the small molecules coming together simultaneously which would be improbable to the point of impossibility: rather, if the first “living” molecule required 26 precursors, call them A to Z for convenience, they might first link chemically in pairs, AB, CD, EF and so on and then in pairs again. None of these steps would be prohibitively improbable especially given the times involved. From there variation and differential reproduction take hold: this process never requires multiple elements to come together simultaneously – an existing gene, for that is what the living molecules are, is modified and acts as a template for some new protein. Evolution does not build each new protein or enzyme from the beginning, from 0, but adapts existing models, which is why the probability calculation often quoted is wrong (I know you like Hoyle who it seems introduced this calculation: a brilliant physicist but not so hot in biology). The only point in this process which is random or at least unpredictable is variation in an existing gene or chromosome, by reshuffling of component parts, or duplication of a gene, or mutation and these occur so frequently that cells have evolved sophisticated repair mechanisms
Jon Wise brings makes a point that scientists are desperate. I don’t think so, although science is under attack particularly in America, by more literalist Christians who would censor science where it disagrees with their beliefs. But scientists are interested in the question of origins, naturally, and would like naturalistic explanations. At this point there are several possible explanations for the nature of our universe, that is the setting of certain constants at values that are necessary for life, often referred to as the Anthropic Principle. Possibly these were set this way be God, possibly it is mere chance – the values could have been anything, but at the time of the Big Bang, they settled at just the right values, perhaps the universe is a multiverse, with possibly an infinite number of universes each subtly different, perhaps the universe will go through a potentially infinite number of cycles of Bang and Crunch, with each new cycle having a new, random set of values and we are of course living in one of the cycles in which it is possible for us to live, perhaps, as Lee Smolen of the Perimeter Institute, suggests, black holes within our universe act as progenitors for new universes each with subtly different characteristics. All scientists know that these ideas are not science, they are interesting speculation: no serious scientist would ever say “This is how it was or is” because there is no data. There is no real evidence for any of these hypotheses and likely never will be. Thus origins, the nature of God lie beyond us, and reason and science cannot help us without fact to work on.
My own feeling is somewhat like Jon’s. Science is a means of exploring the nature of God, however one conceives it. If there is a God, then all of Creation is a book for us to read; if not, we should continue to learn in any case.
Personally, I find evolution and quantum mechanics (especially) far more elegant than a set-piece creation. If God made it all in a particular way, and knows all, how boring that must be and pointless, since all the outcomes would already be known. On the other hand, in QM, uncertainty rules, the outcome of any interaction is fundamentally unpredicable, based on current knowledge, let alone all of them. How much more interesting it would be for God to look with curiousity and amazement at the handiwork as it developed.
Home Thoughts From Abroad 
February 10, 2009 at 4:30 pm
So, in general, I’d agree that any part of biology (or cosmology, or science, in general) will, eventually, cease to be “irreducibly” complex. While we may not have the knowledge now to explain a given complex system, we will continue to discover the underlying systems until that which is a mystery to us now, eventually becomes just the result of a number of smaller mysteries long ago mastered.
But that in itself neither proves nor disproves a Creator — its simply a result of accumulated knowledge.
However, there are a few things which seem to transcend the biological, that, at least to me, don’t seem to be reducible without drawing significant conclusions as to the nature of mankind.
Take for example, the theory of “emergent consciousness” which, in my field, is beginning to move from a science-fictiony concept, to one some people are actually considering. The idea being that consciousness, as observed in human beings, is a spontaneous result of any system upon reaching some threshold of complexity.
The idea comes from the fact that we have no explanation for human self-awareness. While there are other examples in nature of animals possessing a level of self-consciousness, psychologically explainable behaviour, and community, none comes even remotely close to comparing with the awareness of a single human being, much less a society. The reality is that each human being possesses an apparent “self apart from self” — where we are more than just a sum of our parts. And in fact, if one were to replace the individual parts of a man, it wouldn’t change that man’s identity or self-ness.
Evolution can attempt to explain individual behaviours as instinctual developments or chemically-induced reactions, but more than a “missing link” in biology, we are aware that to move from ape to man, there has to have been a significant leap somewhere in our intellectual/psychological development. This concept, which is far from being my own, is called emergent consciousness — and if evolution holds, the belief is that we should, some day soon, see it in our technology.
While the computer on your desk is clearly not a complex enough system to rival that of a single human being, the interconnected nature of the Internet — millions of powerful, and individual systems, becoming, through their connection, a single system — does, in many ways mimic, and even exceed the capacity, complexity, and available calculating power of the human brain. But as yet, despite the warnings of movies like the Terminator and The Matrix, no consciousness has emerged. The human id/ego/super-ego, or “soul” if you like, remains an unexplained, un-imitated, freak of nature.
In fact, as a software developer, I’d go as far as saying that the Internet already supplants humanity as being a superior entity. It is capable of decision making, work balancing, of seeing, hearing and, in other ways, feeling almost the entire planet. It is a repository of data with far more capacity than the human brain, and it can access and retrieve that data more efficiently than we can. It is self-healing, self-replicating, and self-sustaining — yet somehow not self-aware.
Similarly, that the genetic and otherwise biological difference between us and the higher apes is so small as to be insignificant would also seem to indicate that there is more to a man than just parts. Genesis tells us that God called that “His image” and that it is unique to humankind.
While I do believe, in general, that such as thing as a irreducibly complex system is only an issue of our ability to understand its underlying system, it seems to me already observable, if not provable, that the fact that we can even have this discussion indicates a system far more complex than science can ever hope to explain…
However, should the Internet itself suddenly become self-aware, and begin debating this with me, I’d be willing to re-consider my position :-p
Until then, I think its a worthwhile pursuit to continue understanding those underlying systems, and that just because God knows what the end of the story is, doesn’t mean He’s not excited for us as we discover each intricate detail He’s weaved into it…
After all, I’ve seen Star Wars so many times that I drive my wife nuts by quoting every line every character speaks while we watch it. But when my son is finally old enough to watch it with me — and his little conscious mind bends itself around the wild and creative ideas drawn on the screen by other conscious minds — I know I’ll enjoy it in a completely different way.
February 22, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Hello Jon
I have taken a few days to reply.
I am glad to see that we agree that irreducible complexity is not a valid concept in biology. Unfortunately from my perspective as a teacher of science, the term has taken a technical aspect with Behe’s promotion of Intelligent Design, an update of Paley’s Argument by Design, which may or may not have been original with Paley, I don’t know. Behe’s goal is to promote the aims of the Discovery Institute, of which he is or was a director. The institute formulated a “wedge” strategy to root out materialist science and replace it with a more religiously friendly version, which would be fine if evidence existed that supported it. If the strategy worked then science teachers in the US would be in the middle of controversy, teaching material which does not belong in science class, and perhaps unable to withstand the pressure. This would not be right and I oppose it. Intelligent Design is of course the newer strategy after the so-called Creation Science was ruled out by the US courts in the early 90s, I believe. So, that explains my practical interest in the controversy.
Consciousness? Much work is being done by neuroscientists on concsciousness with some interesting results, but I am not sure we have a clear idea what is meant by consciousness, or perhaps it is just me who does not have a clear idea. And to measure consciousness is another thing. But it certainly seems like a candidate for an “emergent” phenomenon, needing as it does about 10 billion neurons, assuming that only humans are conscious. I am not sure that consciousness is unique to humans or is instead a matter of degree, and may be possessed in some fashion by other creatures with complex brains, albeit less complex than ours.
Your remark that we could replace all the parts of a human and still the man or woman would remain (I paraphrase) is certainly true: no atom that was in either of us as a child is in us now, yet we have continuously grown and retain our memories. Fascinating! Certainly it seems that the patterns of neural connections and the underlying instructions in the genome are us, not the mere parts themselves, and that we emerge from these patterns and instructions somehow.
I have written some software, and used the internet and computers extensively (excessively perhaps) and I disagree on one point: I don’t think computers and networks approach the human brain, nor, for all human flaws, do I see it as a superior entity. It has superior talents in data processing, but they have been designed in by humans. I was not aware that the internet is capable of self-replication – I know Web 2.0 is coming (or some such) but I had thought that was again under human aegis. Self-healing? Self-sustaining? I think these are a bit optimistic at this time, although they may come.
I am optimistic that human reason will, combined with the brute computing power of machines, perhaps, explain systems of great complexity; modern science has only been active a few centuries now, and is picking up speed. But I do not expect the answers in my lifetime, or ten , or more … There will always be questions to answer and who knows when any particular one will yield? We will answer questions one day that we cannot ask today.
As to God being excited at seeing us discover things … if theologians are correct and God is omniscient and omnipotent then all the detail of creation from start to finish was already known to him (why do we use a gender for God; there is only one after all, but linguistically it is difficult to avoid). And that fore-knowledge would include every scene from Star Wars, and every reaction you ever had to it or you son, as well, not to mention every detail and nuance of every event and sensation ever felt by any living entity, human or otherwise. I think that would be qualitatively different from your experience watching your son’s reaction to the movie the first time he saw it.
Interesting discussion, thanks
February 23, 2009 at 2:06 pm
While I’m loathe to use Wikipedia as a sole source, these articles do provide a good over-view of some of the points about the Internet as a complex-system:
Self-healing networks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking
Self-replicating parasitic “organisms” in the Internet “body”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_worm
How the Internet was built to be self-sustaining:
However, if 10 billion neurons is the threshold for consciousness, we do have another couple years before the Internet gets there. At this time there’s somewhere below 4 billion nodes on the Internet (excluding those protected behind private networks, which would easily quadruple that number.) When we finish the move to IPv6, the 10 billion number should be shattered easily. It will be interesting to see if “SkyNet” doesn’t emerge at that point…