Flagellum Rebuttal Rebuttal

March 18, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

In my last blog I gave a link for flagellum that includes not only the beautiful detailed construction of the flagellum, but also an accompanying link labeled, “A video response to The Evolution of the Flagellum.” Since I led you to this rebuttal, I should respond to the response. In the first place, I chose this video to illustrate what a flagellum is, because the step-be-step assembly process makes obvious every part necessary to build a flagellum. The Title of this video, “The Evolution of the Flagellum,” implies to some that the flagellum “evolved” by chance and that it was not designed. Behe, the inspiration for this Japanese-produced video, even uses the word “evolution” in his Lehigh faculty website. By this he means that change may require design, but that time may also be in the equation. He defends only one point–Design–and that’s all I’ll address here. The (narrow) point is that the sequence would not reasonably occur by chance.

Now for the rebuttal: The author’s basic argument seems to be that by illustrating the reasonableness of the sequence (acknowledged to be the scientific work of another), the machine would have evolved by chance. Actually, this defense of chance evolution merely adds verbal justification for the sequence already observed. It still does not give the possible usefulness of each step. The key to Behe’s argument is not that the sequence is not discernable, but that the sequence would not evolve by chance without each molecule added being advantageous to the organism, thus justifying the favored reproduction of the organism that possesses it. If a reason, even a theoretical reason, cannot be found for each added molecule, then natural selection would only eliminate the molecule, because the production of any molecule would cost the system something. Without a justifiable return on each molecular investment, the addition would be costly baggage in blind survival of the fittest.

Some would say any claim that an alternative answer cannot be found is a “God of the gaps” answer. In this case it is not that a fossil or organism has not “yet” been found; it is that the advantage to such an organism cannot even be imagined. To ignore that 20 or 25 “missing links” cannot even be imagined is, on the contrary, a “Darwin of the gaps” answer.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »