were already discussed six decades earlier by the Nobel Prize winner Hermann Joseph Muller and have been common knowledge in the field since then 17 . Behe cannot even be forgiven for simply falling into the God of the gaps trap. He did not even find a gap.
The Eye
Let us look at the frequent example used by creationists since Paley: the human eye. In
The Blind Watchmaker,
which was primarily a contemporary evolution scientist’s response to William Paley, zool-ogist Richard Dawkins pointed out that the eye in all vertebrates is wired backward, with the wires from each light-gathering unit sticking out on the side nearest the light and traveling over the surface of the retina where it passes through a hole, the “blind spot,” to join to the optic nerve 18 . Other animals, such as the octopodes and squids, have their eyes wired more rationally.
This is often presented as an example of apparent “poor design.” However, biologist (and devout Catholic) Kenneth Miller does not think this is a fair designation, since the arrangement still works pretty well. He has shown how the wiring of the vertebrate is nicely described by evolution 19 . The retina of the eye evolved as a modification of the outer layer of the brain that gradually developed light sensitivity. The eye is neither poorly nor well designed. It is simply not designed.
Eyes provide such obvious survival value that they developed at least forty times
independently
in the course of evolution 20 . Neuroscience has identified eight different optical solutions for collecting and focusing light, although all share similarities at the molecular and genetic levels 21 . The physics and chemistry are the same; few ways exist for detecting photons. But, because of the important role of chance and local environment in the evolution of complex systems, different solutions to the problem were uncovered by random sampling of the varied paths allowed by evolution. In short, the structures of eyes look as they might be expected to look if they developed from purely material and mindless processes—
chance plus natural selection—as these processes explore the space of possible survival solutions.
Dembski’s Information
While to this date Behe has written one book, his Discovery Institute colleague William Dembski has been highly prolific, with several books and many articles on intelligent design 22 . Dembski claims that design in nature is mathematically demonstrable. Since his arguments are couched in highly and often ambiguous technical language, they require a certain expertise to understand and evaluate. Fortunately, many experts have taken the trouble to carefully examine Dembski’s work. Almost universally they show it to be deeply flawed 23 . I will just mention here one example where Dembski, like Behe, makes statements that are provably wrong.
In his popular book
Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology
(no hiding the religious motive here), Dembski asserts, “Chance and law working in tandem cannot generate information 24 .” He calls this the
Law of Conservation of Information.
In
Has Science Found God?
I disproved this “law” by simply and trivially showing that the quantitative definition of information, as used conventionally and, somewhat obscurely, by Dembski is equivalent to negative entropy 25 . Entropy, which is the quantitative measure of disorder in physics (hence information being related to negative entropy, or order), is not a conserved quantity like energy. In fact, the entropy of an “open” system (one that interacts with its environment by exchanging energy)
can either increase or decrease. Certainly living systems on Earth are open systems. Indeed, a living organism is kept away from thermodynamic equilibrium by its use of sources of outside energy to maintain order.
The Political Battle Today
While at this writing intelligent design continues to gain adherents among those believers who cannot reconcile
The Eye
Let us look at the frequent example used by creationists since Paley: the human eye. In
The Blind Watchmaker,
which was primarily a contemporary evolution scientist’s response to William Paley, zool-ogist Richard Dawkins pointed out that the eye in all vertebrates is wired backward, with the wires from each light-gathering unit sticking out on the side nearest the light and traveling over the surface of the retina where it passes through a hole, the “blind spot,” to join to the optic nerve 18 . Other animals, such as the octopodes and squids, have their eyes wired more rationally.
This is often presented as an example of apparent “poor design.” However, biologist (and devout Catholic) Kenneth Miller does not think this is a fair designation, since the arrangement still works pretty well. He has shown how the wiring of the vertebrate is nicely described by evolution 19 . The retina of the eye evolved as a modification of the outer layer of the brain that gradually developed light sensitivity. The eye is neither poorly nor well designed. It is simply not designed.
Eyes provide such obvious survival value that they developed at least forty times
independently
in the course of evolution 20 . Neuroscience has identified eight different optical solutions for collecting and focusing light, although all share similarities at the molecular and genetic levels 21 . The physics and chemistry are the same; few ways exist for detecting photons. But, because of the important role of chance and local environment in the evolution of complex systems, different solutions to the problem were uncovered by random sampling of the varied paths allowed by evolution. In short, the structures of eyes look as they might be expected to look if they developed from purely material and mindless processes—
chance plus natural selection—as these processes explore the space of possible survival solutions.
Dembski’s Information
While to this date Behe has written one book, his Discovery Institute colleague William Dembski has been highly prolific, with several books and many articles on intelligent design 22 . Dembski claims that design in nature is mathematically demonstrable. Since his arguments are couched in highly and often ambiguous technical language, they require a certain expertise to understand and evaluate. Fortunately, many experts have taken the trouble to carefully examine Dembski’s work. Almost universally they show it to be deeply flawed 23 . I will just mention here one example where Dembski, like Behe, makes statements that are provably wrong.
In his popular book
Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology
(no hiding the religious motive here), Dembski asserts, “Chance and law working in tandem cannot generate information 24 .” He calls this the
Law of Conservation of Information.
In
Has Science Found God?
I disproved this “law” by simply and trivially showing that the quantitative definition of information, as used conventionally and, somewhat obscurely, by Dembski is equivalent to negative entropy 25 . Entropy, which is the quantitative measure of disorder in physics (hence information being related to negative entropy, or order), is not a conserved quantity like energy. In fact, the entropy of an “open” system (one that interacts with its environment by exchanging energy)
can either increase or decrease. Certainly living systems on Earth are open systems. Indeed, a living organism is kept away from thermodynamic equilibrium by its use of sources of outside energy to maintain order.
The Political Battle Today
While at this writing intelligent design continues to gain adherents among those believers who cannot reconcile
Similar Books
