Intelligent design????

Question

A few years ago a major break through was made in the argument for intelligent design, this was that a micro organism had seemed to skip the conventions of evolution and existed with what can only be described as independent moving parts (something like a cog, crankshaft or propeller) I can't fully remember the story or where I heard it/read it. does anyone has any information on this or can point me in the right direction...?

Answer 1

I am sorry to inform you that no such "breakthrough" was made.  Intelligent Design, as a theory, has no scientific credibility, and there is not a single, genuine scientist on the planet that gives the theory a second (or even a first) thought.  For the record, the "event" you are remembering was the publication of an ID article, for the first time ever, in a peer-reviewed journal, The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, in 2004.  In this article, the author, Stephen Meyer, argued that the Cambrian Explosion could not have occurred in only 10 million years without the "help" of an intelligent designer.  As it turned out, this article was actually published WITHOUT peer review for reasons that are still unclear to me.  Had a genuine peer review occured, the article would never have been published.  I read the article in 2004 and wrote a letter to the editor of the Proceedings.  I enclose the text of this letter below for you:

Dear Dr. Banks,

I have recently had the opportunity to read Stephen Meyer's "The origin of  biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", published in your journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (117:2, 213-239).  With all due respect to the undoubtedly fine articles that regularly appear in your journal, it is difficult for me to believe that this particular article received an adequate peer review by individuals with a reasonable background in genetics and molecular evolution.  As I'm sure you are aware, Dr. Meyer has written a very eloquent and thoughtful review discussing his opinion on the probability that the Cambrian explosion (and life in general) was initiated by chance molecular interactions.  Dr. Meyer has obviously committed a great deal of time and thought to this issue and should be commended for doing so. Unfortunately, Dr. Meyer's arguments are obviously those of a lay person who lacks any sophisticated training in the mechanisms of molecular evolution.  His reasoning exhibits a deep lack of understanding of such mechanisms as well as a gross misuse of statistics and probability in the illustration of his arguments.

It is my contention that any competent reviewer with a detailed knowledge of molecular genetics should have reached this identical conclusion, and I urge that any subsequent manuscripts on such controversial material be given a more stringent review so as not to further embarrass the author and the journal.

Respectfully yours,

William K. Decker, PhD

Alumnus

Department of Molecular and Human Genetics

Baylor College of Medicine

Senior Research Scientist

MD Anderson Cancer Center

The editor of the journal, Dr. Richard Banks, was nice enough to write me back with an official explanation as to how this manuscript came to be published in his journal.  If you are interested, I also append the text of his letter to me below:

Dear Dr. Decker,

Thank you for reading the Proceedings.  I hope you read the other papers in that number, as well.

I refer you to the Society's web site, www.biolsocwash.org where a statement concerning the publication of Dr. Meyer's paper appears--or will in the next day or so.

Not that it matters, I point out that I did not become editor until after that number was published.

Richard C. Banks

Richard C. Banks, Ph.D.

USGS-PWRC, MRC-111

National Museum of Natural History

P. O. Box 37012

Washington, DC 20013-7012

202-633-0783

[e-mail]

Of course, all this happened four years ago, and the statement might no longer be up on the website.  Basically, the statement said that the previous editor decided to put up the article on his own, possibly because he was bribed.  This action cost him his job.  The journal further stated that it would not be publishing any more articles on this topic.

Hope this all was helpful to you.

EDIT: The "possibly because he was bribed" contention is mine, not the journal's.  But this is the only conclusion that makes any sense to me.

DOUBLE EDIT: Michael Behe is laughing all the way to the bank.  He makes his living (a very good living) by traveling to ID conventions and telling these people what they want to hear.  He doesn't believe a word that he says...

Answer 2

The right direction is evolution, intelligent design is wrong. I've been looking for proof of intelligent design for so long. It's all BS.The doezens of books and articles I have read on intelligent design have only re-enforced my belief in evolution.

Answer 3

I watched a DVD that talked about what you wrote in your question "crankshaft or propeller" he also said when he looked through a microscope at it. It looked like an outboard motor. The DVD is Unlocking The Mystery Of Life by Illustra Media. Another place you can go to see lots of other facts that prove intelligent design is  drdino.com. He has all kinds of information in his seminar DVDs and in his debate DVDs. The debate DVDs are of him debating college professors on the topic of intelligent design vs. evolution. The professors don't have answers for all the things he brings up and nothing the professors bring up that he doesn't have an answer for. Micro evolution is the only form of evolution that is prove able. That just keeps a species strong.

Answer 4

Intelligent design and creationism questions will probably get more informative answers from the Religion and Spirituality board, this board is for science.  However, it sounds like you are asking about Michael Behe's refuted argument that the bacterial flagellum (which is like a microscopic propeller) is irreducibly complex and therefore could not have evolved.  So if you want more information online search for Michael Behe, irreducible complexity, and bacterial flagella.

Argument:  The bacterial flagellum is made of a number of separate protein components and if any of them are removed or mutated it will cease to function as a structure useful to the cell.  Evolution can only change things things a little at a time, yet it would need to evolve all the pieces simultaneously into place perfectly and this is impossible.  Therefore evolution is false and intelligent design is correct.

Refutation:  First the pro intelligent design conclusion rests on a false dilemma:  if evolution were false it would not automatically make intelligent design true.  But it is also false to say that the bacterial flagellum or any "irreducibly complex" biological structure could not evolve.  In fact "irreducibly complex" structures have evolved in computer simulations, so we know that it is possible.  In the case of the bacterial flagellum, many of its proteins are similar to proteins elsewhere in the bacteria that serve different functions.  This makes it appear that the proteins may have evolved for different functions and then have been adapted for use in the flagellum.  The classic example example is the type III secretory system which is like a flagellum but with many parts removed:  so removing components from the flagellum do not make it useless, but instead give it a different function.

Analogy:  If you remove any part of a mousetrap it doesn't work as a mousetrap anymore, therefore mousetraps are designed and could not have evolved.  Answer:  if you remove some parts of a mousetrap you can still have a fully functional, if ugly, tie clip, therefore that argument is not evidence that tie clips were designed.

Answer 5

You're thinking of the bacterial flagellum. It's not a particular bacteria, it's a structure that many bacteria have which rotates semi-independently and therefore enables them to swim.

Many ID people, in particular the biochemist Michael Behe, claim that this is an example of an 'irreducibly complex' structure that could not have evolved, therefore ID is the only explanation.

The rest of the world, however, carried on doing science and found out that the structure did evolve, from what's known as the Type 3 Secretory System.

That didn't stop Behe claiming in a court of law a couple of years ago that no-one had disproved him (it turned out he hadn't even read the relevant scientific papers), and various ID sources dishonestly depict the flagellum as an actual motor with cogs, when it is nothing of the kind.

Answer 6

First of all, to the people those of you saying that evolution is fact, that is not true. Also, someone said that not a single proper scientist on the planet gives creationism a second thought, that is also wrong. From a survey 20 years ago, there were only 70 scientists who believed in Creationism, in a recent survey, it was calculated that there were around 22,000 scientists who believed in creationism. It seems that the more facts that are unravelled, the more scientists come to believe in creationism.

Answer 7

You're describing the bacterial flagellum.  It is complex, and it's like a rotary motor.

But it does appear to have evolved.  Some of its components have analogs in other bacterial systems.  So, it's not really a "system of irreducible complexity."

In recent years, Michael Behe (author of Darwin's Black Box) looks more and more like a git, and his baby, Intelligent Design, is looking more and more like a Creationism retread.