Hi, Ho! Hi, Ho! Its Off to Create Vision We Go!

Imagine, a tiny city, populated with thousands upon millions of citizens, fast moving transportation, a quiet but successful division of labor, a thriving system of production, all aimed at making more of the city's chief export: vision. Huh?

Thats right, the human eye is a city, filled with all sorts of molecules, made out of lots of proteins comprised of even greater numbers of amino acids. Its a whirring, moving, LIVING bodily contraption that does its job so fast we measure it in picoseconds. That job is the system that binds all these molecules, whirring past each other, together. Vision.

The organic process of light sensitivity has been studied for many years. We have garnered extensive knowledge about the nature of light sensitive molecular structures, which, when combined with the appropriate proteins, can organize transportation of these captured light photons to other organs. The point of this post is to highlight the fact that some people have decided the complexity is too great a burden on science. They wish to stop the studies, throw up their hands, and submit to their own lack of intellectual curiosity. Here is an example.

The following is a quote from Dr. Michael Behe, one of the leading proponents of intelligent design. Dr. Behe is an accredited scientist with what seems to be a deep understanding of biochemistry. He has developed and coined the term "irreducibly complex" to describe all those systems, like vision, that defy reason and seemingly distort the simple observations Darwin had made on that island, so many years ago.

"In the present day, as biochemistry multiplies examples of fantastically complex molecular systems, systems which discourage even an attempt to explain how they may have arisen, we should take a lesson from physics. The conclusion of design flows naturally from the data; we should not shrink from it; we should embrace it and build on it."

(FYI, the allusion to physics is wrapped up in Dr. Behe's assertion earlier in the paper that once the big bang was "agreed upon" by physicists as the cause of universal expansion, they were willing to leave the question of the big bang's cause to theologians (which is, of course, total BS)).

Now, I am not a biochemist, so I dont know the degree or depth of his scientific analysis on specific chemical reactions discussed in the paper. What I do know is it does not take a scientist to recognize the crux of his "irreducibly complex" hypothesis - he is attempting to transform the theory of evolution from one of science based on observation to belief based on argument. In essence, Dr. Behe and the entire ID community wish for evolution to come down from its perch in the realm of science and fight in the kingdom of religion.

I cant quibble with the reason they seek such a transormation: As a scientific discipline, evolution has a long history of strong predictions based on testable hypotheses. For ID, taking on evolution scientifically is not a fair fight. But argument is not about science. Argument is about judgment. And here, ID has made a lot of headway. The ID community has introduced terms like "human exceptionalism" and "irreducibly complex" which, when used in the context of evolution, speak to a verdict about the nature of nature itself.

Human exceptionalism and irreducible complexity are bottom line assessments about nature, made in much the same way a businessman might make a decision for his company. Human exceptionalism is a judgment based on opinion. Similarly, irreducible complexity is a judgment based on, what seems to me, to be an efficiency argument. Intelligent Design itself is a judgment. Its an opinion that the systems of irreducible complexity are not stupidly built. Basically, we are beating our heads against a brick wall trying to find an answer thats right there in front of us: God. (as Lois Griffin says, "Landmines! It was landmines.")

Yet, it does not take a scientist to know that exceptionality is not the product of 2 and 2, or the factorial of 11,234 - it is the opinion that one thing is better than another. Irreducible complexity is not the obelisk from Kubrik's 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is the opinion that questions are not worth asking where the complexity verges on awesome.

To be certain, science has its share of judgments. We judge what and whom to study and when to study it. However, the idea that a scientist would seek to create a vacuum in our knowledge is antithetical to the scientific method. Here, the ID community becomes incensed. ID'ers suggest intelligent design is truth. The scientific community responds by noting that science is not about truth; its about accuracy. ID'ers respond by imagining a fog, thickly surrounding a dense forest, where God strikes a fancy that he calls the "Eye" which he will make, amidst all that thunder and lightning(!), for the purpose of sight! Ha ha ha! Hi ho, Hi ho, its off to create vision we go!"

But where does all this ID business come from anyway? I believe it started with the conservative principle that, indisputably, there is a crisis of morality in this country. People are not acting as they should. They are not acting in the image of God. In fact, they are acting much like the irresponsible monkeys evolution says we are. Obviously, the situation is much more complex than this (no pun intended), but the origins of ID are clearly rooted in the same philosophy that has been the catalyst of conservative christian organization throughout the U.S. - that moral values are almost non-existent in a country of fornicators, drug users, and homosexuals. As Pat Robertson warned the citizens of Dover Township after they ousted several ID supporters from the school board, "if a disaster hits your town, dont come crying to God, because you just abandoned him!".

How comforting Pat...you are such an exceptional human!