Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

[Timótheos]

Molecular biologist Douglas Axe calculated that the odds of randomly getting a protein with a particular function was 1 in 10 to the power of 77. To get an idea of how unlikely this is, the number of atoms in all planet Earth is estimated to be 10 to the power of 50. Life forms require many functional proteins, not just one. But there simply hasn't been enough time since the beginning of Earth for it to randomly produce a single one of those functional protein. (see page 40)

I finished reading DBB and quite enjoyed it. I like the way Behe was able to take a difficult subject and make it comprehensible for the layman by using clear and simple language. I especially appreciate the way he uses real life metaphors to explain complex systems, like the thousand lane highway, and the parking garage with sensors. I recognized a few of the pathways and metabolic processes he describes from the biochemistry course I took in Pharmacy school. It would have been cool to have him as a teacher!

Many years ago, I think it was early to mid-nineties, I remember reading a book that talked about evolution. The author made the case, quite convincingly, that natural selection by random mutation was statistically and mathematically impossible (similar to what Windmill Knight posted above). There was simply not enough ‘time' in the universe for the number of random mutations it would take to account for life as we know it to occur. It’s like a million monkeys, hammering away on a million typewriters for a million years, would still never be able to produce Shakespeare. Change “million” into “infinite” and the results are likely to be the same.

Ever since then, I haven't put much stock into Darwin's theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the incredible diversity of life on earth. In that sense, DBB was not such a huge revelation for me, but more of a confirmation of something I had already long suspected. It was good to read his explanations though, particularly the problem of irreducible complexity. And his book certainly provides the tools to help bolster one’s argument when talking about evolution with everyday people.

Anyway, as I was reading the book and thinking about all these tiny, incredibly intricate, bio-molecular machines operating inside my body and all other living systems all the time, I kept coming back to the question - what is the force or process driving these perfect little machines? What powers them and makes them go? What is the animating principle behind life itself? On the forum we would probably call it ‘consciousness’ or 'soul' in regards to humans and higher animals. But for now I’ll just call it the ‘life force’.

In relation to this, there was one small part in Behe's book that kind of stood out for me, and when I read read it, I immediately shook my head and thought - “No, that can’t be right”. I’ll reproduce the passage here from chapter 9…

It wasn’t too long ago that life was thought to be made of a special substance, different from the stuff that comprised nonliving objects. Friedrich Wohler debunked that idea.

Of course this 'life force' that we see expressed everywhere in nature is probably not a “substance” as defined above, but there definitely seems to be something, some kind of energy or animating principle that differentiates a living from a non-living organism.

Imagine two goldfish in a bowl, one of them swimming around, the other floating belly-up. Let’s say that the dead fish just passed away a few minutes ago. From a bio-molecular perspective, both fishes contain virtually the same enzymes, receptors and complex proteins as the other, yet in one fish they are working and in the other they are not. There is an obvious observable difference between the two, and though it may not be a physical “substance” per se, to deny some kind of animating life force seems illogical.

So, I went and looked up this Friedrich Wohler person to see exactly what he’s debunking.

Friedrich Wöhler - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Friedrich Wohler was a 19th century German chemist who is best known for synthesizing urea (an organic molecule) in a laboratory setting. But how did this discovery debunk the idea of a 'life force' that animates all of organic life? Well, apparently it was seen as a direct counter argument to the concept of “vitalism”…

Vitalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A philosophy or belief that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things”.

So, according to mainstream evolutionary science, Wohler's scientific breakthrough debunked this idea of vitalism because one of the tenets of the vitalist philosophy promoted by Jons Jakob Berelius stipulated that "organic" compounds could only be synthesized living organisms.

Wöhler is regarded as a pioneer in organic chemistry as a result of his (accidentally) synthesizing urea from ammonium cyanate in the Wöhler synthesis in 1828.[2] In a letter to Swedish chemist Jöns Jacob Berzelius the same year, he wrote, 'In a manner of speaking, I can no longer hold my chemical water. I must tell you that I can make urea without the use of kidneys of any animal, be it man or dog.'[3]
This discovery has become celebrated as a refutation of vitalism, the hypothesis that living things are alive because of some special "vital force". However, contemporary accounts do not support that notion. This Wöhler Myth, as historian of science Peter J. Ramberg called it, originated from a popular history of chemistry published in 1931, which, "ignoring all pretense of historical accuracy, turned Wöhler into a crusader who made attempt after attempt to synthesize a natural product that would refute vitalism and lift the veil of ignorance, until 'one afternoon the miracle happened'".[4] Nevertheless, it was the beginning of the end of one popular vitalist hypothesis, that of Jöns Jakob Berzelius, that "organic" compounds could be made only by living things.

After reading the passage above, I don’t agree that the discovery of inorganic urea synthesis acts as a plausible refutation to the vitalism hypothesis. It seems possible to me that with the right technology, simple organic compounds could be produced in a lab, and yet there still could be a 'life force' that animates organic systems. I think that this one aspect of Berzelius’s original premise is faulty, but the concept of “vitalism” itself could still be considered a valuable idea to explore.

More from wikipedia…

Jöns Jakob Berzelius, one of the early 19th century fathers of modern chemistry, argued that a regulative force must exist within living matter to maintain its functions.[6] Vitalist chemists predicted that organic materials could not be synthesized from inorganic components, but Friedrich Wöhler synthesised urea from inorganic components in 1828.[7] However, contemporary accounts do not support the common belief that vitalism died when Wöhler made urea. This Wöhler Myth, as historian Peter Ramberg called it, originated from a popular history of chemistry published in 1931, which, "ignoring all pretense of historical accuracy, turned Wöhler into a crusader who made attempt after attempt to synthesize a natural product that would refute vitalism and lift the veil of ignorance, until 'one afternoon the miracle happened'".[8][9][10]
Between 1833 and 1844, Johannes Peter Müller wrote a book on physiology called Handbuch der Physiologie, which became the leading textbook in the field for much of the nineteenth century. The book showed Müller's commitments to vitalism; he questioned why organic matter differs from inorganic, then proceeded to chemical analyses of the blood and lymph. He describes in detail the circulatory, lymphatic, respiratory, digestive, endocrine, nervous, and sensory systems in a wide variety of animals but explains that the presence of a soul makes each organism an indivisible whole. He also claimed the behavior of light and sound waves showed that living organisms possessed a life-energy for which physical laws could never fully account.[11]

There is a pretty strong modern philosophical argument against vitalism that I can understand where it’s coming from. By advocating for an undefinable “force” that animates a living organism, just because this force can’t be isolated, measured, or separated from the organism itself, is akin to saying that the actions of a locomotive is a result of “locomotive power”. It’s a self-referencing, meaningless and unfalsifiable doctrine.

For me, this still doesn’t debunk the idea of vitalism, because this clearly observable 'life force’, like gravity or fire, even though we can perceive it and act upon it, belongs to one of those mysteries of the world that science hasn’t yet adequately explained and still doesn’t fully understand.

I’m going to quote a little bit more from the wikipedia page on vitalism, and do recommend reading the article in its entirety, as it’s all quite fascinating.

Vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies: many traditional healing practices posited that disease results from some imbalance in vital forces. In the Western tradition founded by Hippocrates, these vital forces were associated with the four temperaments and humours; Eastern traditions posited an imbalance or blocking of qi or prana. One example of a similar notion in Africa is the Yoruba concept of ase. Today forms of vitalism continue to exist as philosophical positions or as tenets in some religious traditions.[citation needed]
Complementary and alternative medicine therapies include energy therapies,[26] associated with vitalism, especially biofield therapies such as therapeutic touch, Reiki, external qi, chakra healing and SHEN therapy.[27] In these therapies, the "subtle energy" field of a patient is manipulated by a practitioner. The subtle energy is held to exist beyond the electromagnetic energy produced by the heart and brain. Beverly Rubik describes the biofield as a "complex, dynamic, extremely weak EM field within and around the human body...."[27]
The founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, promoted an immaterial, vitalistic view of disease: "...they are solely spirit-like (dynamic) derangements of the spirit-like power (the vital principle) that animates the human body." The view of disease as a dynamic disturbance of the immaterial and dynamic vital force is taught in many homeopathic colleges and constitutes a fundamental principle for many contemporary practising homeopaths.[citation needed]

Perhaps it’s time to consider revitalizing the “vitalism” hypothesis and make it a viable philosophy once more (puns intended).

These are just a few of the thoughts I had while reading Darwin's Black Box. In the meantime, I’m halfway through Stove’s book and will begin reading Darwin Devolves after that.

 

[aragorn]

Thanks, Timótheos, very interesting! So, one could speculate, that this vitalistic 'life force' is the intelligence that keeps those micromachines going, and if needed, gives instructions of what and how to change. And by e.g. Reiki, we can alter those instructions...?

 

[Joe]

Imagine two goldfish in a bowl, one of them swimming around, the other floating belly-up. Let’s say that the dead fish just passed away a few minutes ago. From a bio-molecular perspective, both fishes contain virtually the same enzymes, receptors and complex proteins as the other, yet in one fish they are working and in the other they are not. There is an obvious observable difference between the two, and though it may not be a physical “substance” per se, to deny some kind of animating life force seems illogical.

Science would say the the driving force is "energy", and energy is not so much an observable 'thing' but rather something that is "just there" that produces movement or heat or light that can then be observed. It is the "random motion of the constituent parts of matter". Super scientific, I know.

 

[Timótheos]

Science would say the the driving force is "energy", and energy is not so much an observable 'thing' but rather something that is "just there" that produces movement or heat or light that can then be observed. It is the "random motion of the constituent parts of matter". Super scientific, I know.

Sounds like some sort of scientific mysticism that isn't all the different than vitalism itself. As as per my goldfish example, if this energy was "just there" a minute ago, and all the molecular components are still in place, where did it go and what is it that differentiates the live fish from the dead fish?

 

[Joe]

Sounds like some sort of scientific mysticism that isn't all the different than vitalism itself. As as per my goldfish example, if this energy was "just there" a minute ago, and all the molecular components are still in place, where did it go and what is it that differentiates the live fish from the dead fish?

Indeed it does. But "science" would say that the energy that animated your goldfish is transformed into heat energy, so the aqarium water will be a little bit warmer after he has gone to the great aquarium in the sky.

 

[Joe]

Seems to me there's a correlation between the random change vs intelligent design theorists and coincidence vs conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists are denounced for, essentially, seeing intelligent design behind a lot of world events that coincidence theorists say are purely random. In addition, conspiracy theorists are accused of being motivated by a desperation to make sense of and find meaning in a world that is little more than "scary" chance. Seems like the same fundamental difference in world view manifests in domains others than the scientific.

Just thought I'd note that.

 

[genero81]

It occurs to me that maybe we're seeing an effect of The Wave. There's been great effort and great links to which the PTB have gone, both 3D and no doubt 4D to lock down the planet with this materialistic mind set. But now we have more and more individuals who are puncturing the materialist boat; Behe, Marshall, Stove, Walling & Hicks and others including ourselves. Like rays of light breaking through and streaming into the darkness. And they are scrambling, trying to plug the holes but it's a losing proposition. When the levee breaks...

 

[luc]

Seems to me there's a correlation between the random change vs intelligent design theorists and coincidence vs conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists are denounced for, essentially, seeing intelligent design behind a lot of world events that coincidence theorists say are purely random. In addition, conspiracy theorists are accused of being motivated by a desperation to make sense of and find meaning in a world that is little more than "scary" chance. Seems like the same fundamental difference in world view manifests in domains others than the scientific.

Just thought I'd note that.

Yes, and there's another such strange parallel: "free marketers" are always saying that self-serving individuals interacting freely, without plan or coordination, will always produce great results "spontanously", i.e. the "invisible hand". Randomness producing order. So what to the Darwinian is the "blind watchmaker", to the capitalist is the "invisible hand". There seems to be a strange kind of pattern that connects these various issues - the common theme being, perhaps, to lock people into absurd materialist thinking that denies the power of consciousness, of intelligence, of making decisions, of values etc.

 

[Laura]

Yes, and there's another such strange parallel: "free marketers" are always saying that self-serving individuals interacting freely, without plan or coordination, will always produce great results "spontanously", i.e. the "invisible hand". Randomness producing order. So what to the Darwinian is the "blind watchmaker", to the capitalist is the "invisible hand". There seems to be a strange kind of pattern that connects these various issues - the common theme being, perhaps, to lock people into absurd materialist thinking that denies the power of consciousness, of intelligence, of making decisions, of values etc.

Or, maybe it's the other way around? Maybe the "hidden hand" is an expression of covert belief in something that guides the world while socialism is an attempt by materialists to impose order on what they believe is crazy people acting in random ways, unguided by anything but chaos?

 

[luc]

Hm, interesting - that would be perhaps where "freedom", correctly understood, comes into play - respecting the free will of individuals and having faith that they will be guided by something higher, something deeper. That would be what the West got right, as Jordan Peterson always emphasizes. Perhaps this goes back to Political Ponerology and the idea that there are two fundamentally different meanings normal people ascribe to certain words and concepts as opposed to pathologicals?

 

[Laura]

Hm, interesting - that would be perhaps where "freedom", correctly understood, comes into play - respecting the free will of individuals and having faith that they will be guided by something higher, something deeper. That would be what the West got right, as Jordan Peterson always emphasizes. Perhaps this goes back to Political Ponerology and the idea that there are two fundamentally different meanings normal people ascribe to certain words and concepts as opposed to pathologicals?

I dunno. That just jumped into my mind.

What I see is that some things about Capitalism are damaging to human beings, but other things help them develop and grow and express themselves creatively; creativity is a big part of Capitalist enterprise.

On the other side, I know perfectly well that there are some human beings who are basically entropic and others that are "broken" in various ways. To my way of thinking, they act like hormones in the body of humanity, eliciting responses from others, i.e. empathy or STO or whatever. So there is something to be said for basic needs to be affordable for all, and provided to those who can't afford anything because their creative energy is so low. But then you run into the problem of "giving" to black hole type people and that just feeds negativity. And I've seen with my own eyes how socialism kills initiative and creativity.

I guess it's just one of those insoluble problems of 3rd density that trigger growth or devolution depending on who a person is.

 

[genero81]

I guess it's just one of those insoluble problems of 3rd density that trigger growth or devolution depending on who a person is.

Yup, the learning environment works, harsh though it might be. At the same time, part of the 'lesson' of this environment is to strive to improve living conditions for ourselves and others. In so doing we explore all the nuances involved and we learn a great deal more. OSIT

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Yes, and there's another such strange parallel: "free marketers" are always saying that self-serving individuals interacting freely, without plan or coordination, will always produce great results "spontanously", i.e. the "invisible hand". Randomness producing order. So what to the Darwinian is the "blind watchmaker", to the capitalist is the "invisible hand". There seems to be a strange kind of pattern that connects these various issues - the common theme being, perhaps, to lock people into absurd materialist thinking that denies the power of consciousness, of intelligence, of making decisions, of values etc.

I'm not sure about this connection. I don't think the free marketers are entirely off. Change the language slightly and you can get something like this: individuals (self-serving, but with varying degrees of altruism) interact freely, based on their own personal and communal intentions, aims and reasons. This will produce results spontaneously, i.e. the invisible hand. It's not randomness producing order, it is the kind of order that results from a large group of people acting in rational ways (i.e. with reasons, not bereft of emotions or values). Behe might call this a "spandrel of intelligence", i.e. an unintended result of intelligent activities. No individual creates what we call the economy, but individuals all making choices do, even if they aren't thinking about the higher-level effects of their choices.

Another example of a 'spandrel of intelligence' like this is the social structure itself: the hierarchy. Humans sort themselves into a higher, social structure when they interact. This interaction is the result of all kinds of variable that aren't necessarily consciously thought through. That's not to say social groups can't be engineered; just that social behavior can and does do so 'on its own'. Just watch groups of kids sort themselves while playing games and you can see the seeds of it.

And as for Laura's observation, I think that's very interesting. Because how does 'something' (whatever it is) guide the world and human behaviors? Well, I think it's through unconscious and conscious intentions. And higher intelligences might be able to see the higher-level structure and 'engineer' things in one direction or another, for good or ill, through the playing out of those intentions. And this plays itself out through all of biological life. Animals are not conscious of their intentions in the way we are, yet they are intelligent, to a degree. And their intelligent behaviors result in 'societies' not only in their own species, but in the entire ecosystem constantly balancing and rebalancing in stunning complexity, and creating something that despite all its horrors, works, and has worked for billions of years. That's a hidden hand if I ever saw one! ;)

 

[Voyageur]

Ever since then, I haven't put much stock into Darwin's theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the incredible diversity of life on earth. In that sense, DBB was not such a huge revelation for me, but more of a confirmation of something I had already long suspected. It was good to read his explanations though, particularly the problem of irreducible complexity. And his book certainly provides the tools to help bolster one’s argument when talking about evolution with everyday people.

A quick reference to vitalism is also well depicted in Janism:

Vitalism

is at the core of Jain philosophy which separates Jiva (soul or life) from Ajiva (non-soul). According to Jain cosmology, whole universe is made up of six simple substances and is therefore eternal. These six substances (dravya) are:-

• Jiva
• Time
• Space
• Dharma (medium of motion)
• Adharma
• Matter (Pudgala)

As for what you said, I agree, the revelation was more in confirming, which Behe cements rather well, and after being away this week it came up in discussions; there was push back and yet when asked for the arguments to support Darwinian evolution, there were none other than mutations - mostly breeding which missed the point. However, when they start to grasp the concepts within biochemical designs, and as you said, the irreducible complexity of how things work, it was like some type of relief overcame them - something of a struggle within their inculcated programing had been shattered.

 

[Breton]

I just finished Darwin's Black Box and I really enjoyed it a lot. What a ride.

So I have ordered his other two books everyone has recommended here to follow up that one. In the meantime I have started Darwinian Fairytales by Stove.

I can sure understand all the excitement here and everyone taking the time to ponder the implications when witnessing the complete destruction of a theory that has for so long had mainstream science in its grip!

I did maybe a bit too quick review for the book, but I did not want to wait around because I think Behe needs good publicity on Amazon. I just wrote:

This book is very good, and so I give it full rating in whatever system being used. There is no superstition here nor invoking of religion, just looking hard at the evidence with a scientific eye.

I appreciated the introduction to the complexities of systems at the molecular level that this biochemist knows and so he then explained clearly and made accessible to the layman. He made great use of metaphors to explain concepts in terms of real life examples. He also has a sense of humor too - not a dry book at all!

His elucidation of the theory of intelligent design is very well thought out. His arguments and presentation of the data is so good that it is no wonder everyone who hates his book because it challenges their dogma has not really tried to refute anything in it, but instead resort to mainly hit pieces that attack made up straw man arguments of things Behe never said, instead of directly and clearly arguing against things he actually wrote about (and it has been 23 years now since the first version came out).

Since science has advanced in these past years he has recently released a new book which should also be a good read: Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution. I think I will also get one of his previous books that I have heard is worthwhile follow up: The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.

I have to say I really enjoy such clearly written, rational, logical books as these that are really scientific in the sense they look at the facts as clearly as possible and use that to formulate a reasonable theory. I am not impressed with theories of our origin that do not answer most questions, and rely on mostly rhetoric and wishful thinking.

There have been plenty of people who have very reasonably pointed out flaws, unanswered questions, and great improbabilities in the Darwinian theory of evolution that asserts life came into being in a gradual step by step process of random mutations over a very long period of time and so I have been skeptical about it before reading this book. Now this book gives me even more reasons to suspect neo-Darwinist theories are never going figure out the origin of life, despite promises and bluster. Science needs something better.