REALL News - Vol 07 No 12 - 1999

Magazine Overview

Title: The REALL News
Issue: Volume 7, Number 12
Date: December 1999
Publisher: The REALL News

This issue of The REALL News features a critical analysis by Dr. Karen Bartelt, an organic chemist and Associate Professor of Chemistry at Eureka College, of Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" and the concept of Intelligent Design (ID).

A Central Illinois Scientist Responds to the Black Box

Dr. Karen Bartelt directly addresses Michael Behe's recent appearance at Lincoln Christian Seminary in Lincoln, IL, and his claims regarding "irreducible complexity" (IC) in cellular structures. Behe's central thesis, as presented in "Darwin's Black Box," is that certain biological components are so complex that all their parts must be functional simultaneously for them to work, making gradual Darwinian evolution an inadequate explanation. Behe posits that this necessitates an "intelligent designer."

Bartelt begins by noting that Behe's work was the subject of an article by Michael Miller, religion editor of the Peoria Journal Star. Piqued by Behe's claims, Bartelt attended two of Behe's lectures and reviewed his interview in the Peoria Journal Star, offering her scientific perspective.

Behe's Criticisms and Scientific Rebuttals

Bartelt outlines three lines of criticism Behe claims scientists have against him:

1. Religious Nature of Findings: Behe states scientists consider his findings religious rather than scientific. Bartelt counters that the standard definition of science as the "systematic study of the natural world" makes this distinction fair. She suggests that if Behe wishes to explore a "designer," he should not label it as science.
2. "Known Christian" Argument: Behe reportedly claimed that scientists dismiss his ideas because he is a "known Christian," implying design is a religious idea. Bartelt refutes this, stating that many of Behe's critics are also Christians and that the rejection of design by the scientific community stems from a lack of evidential support, not from the religious affiliation of its proponents.
3. Refutation of Irreducible Complexity: Bartelt asserts that Behe's examples of irreducible complexity, such as the mousetrap analogy, have been "soundly refuted in scientific journals and on the web." She references evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller's demonstration on PBS' "Firing Line" that the mousetrap analogy fails. Bartelt points out a more fundamental flaw: the assumption that a molecular machine must perform a specific task to be useful, arguing that parts can have other functions or be useless without a critical component.

Behe's Allegations Against the Scientific Community

Bartelt addresses Behe's claims that scientists criticize him for not being the "proper type of scientist" to discuss evolution. She attributes this criticism to Behe's "selectively ignorant" stance on evolutionary literature or his inability to perform computer searches. As an example, Bartelt cites Behe's assertion that scientific literature on the evolution of complex biochemical systems is "absent." She contrasts this with John Catalano's keyword search, which yielded 13,000 hits on the topic, including articles on the immune system, flagella, and blood-clotting systems.

Bartelt also discusses Behe's claim that he hasn't published enough in scientific journals on intelligent design. While Behe agrees he wants to see "real laboratory research on the question of intelligent design," Bartelt notes that the ID movement has produced little such research. Their journal, "Origins & Design," primarily features theological arguments and critiques, not empirical research supporting ID.

The Problem of Defining "Design"

Bartelt highlights a significant challenge for ID proponents: the inability to define "design" in a way that differentiates it from products of natural selection. She references fellow ID proponent William Dembski, who admits that evolutionary processes can exhibit "marks of intelligence." Bartelt criticizes Behe's "folk-science" definition of design, which relies on subjective recognition of interacting parts, akin to recognizing a trap. She argues that humans often impose design where it doesn't exist, citing examples like the "face on Mars."

Furthermore, Bartelt questions the ability to discern "poor design." She notes that when confronted with examples of biological "suboptimality" (e.g., the human spine, birth canal), ID proponents often retreat to theology. She cites Russell Doolittle's critique that a "Creator would have designed such a circuitous and contrived system," and Behe's response that Doolittle was defending evolution on theological grounds. Bartelt argues that Doolittle was merely asking for intelligent design to be, in fact, intelligent.

ID Proponents as "Davids-with-slingshots"

Bartelt characterizes ID proponents as "Davids-with-slingshots" attempting to challenge the "Goliath of science." She notes Behe's statement that the scientific community resists unorthodox ideas like ID and that speaking out carries career risks. Bartelt refutes Behe's assertion that scientists adhere to Darwinian theory solely because they are atheists and materialists. She provides the example of Peter Mitchell and the chemiosmotic theory, which initially faced resistance but was eventually accepted and earned Mitchell a Nobel Prize. Bartelt points out that Behe misrepresented the timeline and outcome of Mitchell's work, omitting that Mitchell died years after receiving the Nobel Prize.

Bartelt concludes that the "argument from design" is an old argument, repudiated in the 19th century, and Behe offers nothing new. She urges Behe to conduct an honest and complete review of the literature, stop using Christianity as a crutch, return to the laboratory, and produce evidence to support his premises. She emphasizes that new scientific ideas, while initially met with skepticism, ultimately prevail when supported by evidence, citing biologists Barbara McClintock, Mitoo Kimura, and Sewell Wright as examples.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The REALL News, through this article, adopts a strongly critical stance towards the Intelligent Design movement and Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." The editorial stance is that ID lacks scientific rigor, empirical evidence, and a clear definition, relying instead on critiques of evolutionary theory and theological arguments. The magazine champions the scientific method, evidence-based reasoning, and the established body of evolutionary biology, positioning ID as a pseudoscientific or religiously motivated movement attempting to masquerade as science.