richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
I ! T R t AI.M15S I' ('. I R !' A f \ 1 Y '•• s \ {> i , o I) 131unusually for a biological mechanism - it is a spectacularlyinefficient one).Without a word of justification, explanation or amplification,Behe simply proclaims the bacterial flagellar motor to beirreducibly complex. Since he offers no argument in favour of hisassertion, we may begin by suspecting a failure of his imagination.He further alleges that specialist biological literature has ignoredthe problem. The falsehood of this allegation was massively and (toBehe) embarrassingly documented in the court of Judge John E. Jonesin Pennsylvania in 2005, where Behe was testifying as an expertwitness on behalf of a group of creationists who had tried to impose'intelligent design' creationism on the science curriculum of a localpublic school - a move of 'breathtaking inanity', to quote JudgeJones (phrase and man surely destined for lasting fame). This wasn'tthe only embarrassment Behe suffered at the hearing, as we shall see.The key to demonstrating irreducible complexity is to show thatnone of the parts could have been useful on its own. They allneeded to be in place before any of them could do any good (Behe'sfavourite analogy is a mousetrap). In fact, molecular biologists haveno difficulty in finding parts functioning outside the whole, bothfor the flagellar motor and for Behe's other alleged examples ofirreducible complexity. The point is well put by Kenneth Millerof Brown University, for my money the most persuasive nemesis of'intelligent design', not least because he is a devout Christian. Ifrequently recommend Miller's book, Finding Darwin's God, toreligious people who write to me having been bamboozled by Behe.In the case of the bacterial rotary engine, Miller calls our attentionto a mechanism called the Type Three Secretory System orTTSS. 63 The TTSS is not used for rotatory movement. It is one ofseveral systems used by parasitic bacteria for pumping toxic substancesthrough their cell walls to poison their host organism. Onour human scale, we might think of pouring or squirting a liquidthrough a hole; but, once again, on the bacterial scale things lookdifferent. Each molecule of secreted substance is a large proteinwith a definite, three-dimensional structure on the same scale as theTTSS's own: more like a solid sculpture than a liquid. Eachmolecule is individually propelled through a carefully shapedmechanism, like an automated slot machine dispensing, say, toys or
132 "i H I''( ' O I- 1 D V i !' S I O Nbottles, rather than a simple hole through which a substance might'flow'. The goods-dispenser itself is made of a rather small numberof protein molecules, each one comparable in size and complexityto the molecules being dispensed through it. Interestingly, thesebacterial slot machines are often similar across bacteria that are notclosely related. The genes for making them have probably been'copied and pasted' from other bacteria: something that bacteriaare remarkably adept at doing, and a fascinating topic in its ownright, but I must press on.The protein molecules that form the structure of the TTSS arevery similar to components of the flagellar motor. To theevolutionist it is clear that TTSS components were commandeeredfor a new, but not wholly unrelated, function when the flagellarmotor evolved. Given that the TTSS is tugging molecules throughitself, it is not surprising that it uses a rudimentary version of theprinciple used by the flagellar motor, which tugs the molecules ofthe axle round and round. Evidently, crucial components of theflagellar motor were already in place and working beforethe flagellar motor evolved. Commandeering existing mechanismsis an obvious way in which an apparently irreducibly complex pieceof apparatus could climb Mount Improbable.A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it willbe. Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied witha lazy default such as 'intelligent design theory' would encourage.Here is the message that an imaginary 'intelligent design theorist'might broadcast to scientists: 'If you don't understand how somethingworks, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don'tknow how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understandhow memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesisa bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don't goto work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dearscientist, don't work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries, forwe can use them. Don't squander precious ignorance by researchingit away. We need those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.'St Augustine said it quite openly: 'There is another form of temptation,even more fraught with danger. This is the disease ofcuriosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets ofnature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which
- Page 82 and 83: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 84 and 85: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 86 and 87: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 88 and 89: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 90 and 91: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 92 and 93: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 94 and 95: A R G U M ENTS F O R G O D ' S E X
- Page 96 and 97: ARGUMENTS F O R GOD'S E X I S T E N
- Page 98 and 99: A R C U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 100 and 101: A R G U M E N T S FOR G O D ' S E X
- Page 102 and 103: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 104 and 105: ARGUMEN T S FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE 101
- Page 106 and 107: A R G U M E N T S F O R G OD'S E X
- Page 108 and 109: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 110 and 111: A R Ci U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S
- Page 112 and 113: ARGUMENTS F O R G OD'S E X I S T E
- Page 114 and 115: W H Y T II E R E A L M O S T C E R
- Page 116 and 117: W H Y T H E R E A I. M O S T C E R
- Page 118 and 119: W H Y T H ERE AL.MOS T C E R TAINL.
- Page 120 and 121: W H Y T H f ' R i . A L M O S T C 1
- Page 122 and 123: W H Y T l i l - I U ; A L M O S T C
- Page 124 and 125: W H Y r i-i r R r A I M O S T C t R
- Page 126 and 127: W H Y '11IKRK A L M O S T (.: F R T
- Page 128 and 129: no evidence of its own, but thrives
- Page 130 and 131: W H Y r H E RE A 1. M O S T C F.RTA
- Page 134 and 135: W H Y T H E R E A I . M O S T C H R
- Page 136 and 137: A I. M O S I C 1 R I'A I N M is X <
- Page 138 and 139: W i I Y 1 II F. R F A 1 Vi (.) S T
- Page 140 and 141: W H Y r 11 r u r -\ i. \i o s r c r
- Page 142 and 143: W 11 Y '1 11 !•; R I. A I VI () S
- Page 144 and 145: !' R I ALMOST l' I U '[ A I \ I Y i
- Page 146 and 147: W H Y T H !• R E A I. M O S "I" C
- Page 148 and 149: extravagant God hypothesis and the
- Page 150 and 151: W H Y T H K R K A L VI O S I C E R
- Page 152 and 153: W H Y T H H R B A L M O S T C E R T
- Page 154 and 155: WHY T H E R K A L. M O S T C R R T
- Page 156 and 157: W H V T H t R t A I M O S T C E R T
- Page 158 and 159: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GO
- Page 160 and 161: W H Y T H E R i ; A L M O S T C E R
- Page 162 and 163: T H E R O O T S OF R K 1. i G I ()
- Page 164 and 165: THE ROOTS OF RELIGION 165themselves
- Page 166 and 167: THE ROOTS ()1 ; R fc L I G I O N 16
- Page 168 and 169: T H 1-; R O O T S O F R E I 1 C 1 O
- Page 170 and 171: T H E R O O T S OF R E L I G I O N
- Page 172 and 173: T H I', R O () T S OF R K I. I G I
- Page 174 and 175: THL R O O T S OF R E L I G I O N 17
- Page 176 and 177: T H E R O O T S OF R I: I. I (i I O
- Page 178 and 179: T 11 E R O O T S O F R K L 1 (. 1 O
- Page 180 and 181: THE ROOTS OF RELIGION 181psychologi
132 "i H I''
( ' O I- 1 D V i !' S I O N
bottles, rather than a simple hole through which a substance might
'flow'. The goods-dispenser itself is made of a rather small number
of protein molecules, each one comparable in size and complexity
to the molecules being dispensed through it. Interestingly, these
bacterial slot machines are often similar across bacteria that are not
closely related. The genes for making them have probably been
'copied and pasted' from other bacteria: something that bacteria
are remarkably adept at doing, and a fascinating topic in its own
right, but I must press on.
The protein molecules that form the structure of the TTSS are
very similar to components of the flagellar motor. To the
evolutionist it is clear that TTSS components were commandeered
for a new, but not wholly unrelated, function when the flagellar
motor evolved. Given that the TTSS is tugging molecules through
itself, it is not surprising that it uses a rudimentary version of the
principle used by the flagellar motor, which tugs the molecules of
the axle round and round. Evidently, crucial components of the
flagellar motor were already in place and working before
the flagellar motor evolved. Commandeering existing mechanisms
is an obvious way in which an apparently irreducibly complex piece
of apparatus could climb Mount Improbable.
A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will
be. Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with
a lazy default such as 'intelligent design theory' would encourage.
Here is the message that an imaginary 'intelligent design theorist'
might broadcast to scientists: 'If you don't understand how something
works, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't
know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand
how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis
a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don't go
to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear
scientist, don't work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries, for
we can use them. Don't squander precious ignorance by researching
it away. We need those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.'
St Augustine said it quite openly: 'There is another form of temptation,
even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of
curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of
nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which
Change language