【Scientific scene】accidental or inevitable

The theory of evolution can no longer be compared to the theory of intelligent design!

Translated by Ren Jun

German chemist Friedrich Wohler was very surprised when he used ammonia cyanide to make urea in the laboratory, because ammonia cyanide is an inorganic substance and urea is the excretion of organic matter. His experiments showed that substances produced from organic matter can also be made from inorganic matter! This broke the boundaries between life and inanimate things that people thought at the time, and opened the prelude to "life research." If life is composed of ordinary substances such as stones, people can study life through scientific methods. In the 175 years since Woller's experiment, scientists have learned a lot about life. They not only discovered the structure of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and deciphered the genetic code, they also knew how to clone genes, cells, and even entire bodies. organism.

Two opposing views

As science develops day by day, what are scientists’ basic views on the universe and life? Of course, they have many views, but I think they can be summarized into two opposing views.

The first view is represented by Richard Dawkins, professor of biology at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. He published a paper in 1997 on pages 890 to 893 of Science Magazine, Volume 277, titled "Genetic Science and God: A Hot Trend?" He believed that the universe we observe has no design and no In any sense, neither good nor bad.

The second view is represented by Joseph Ratzinger, the former Catholic Pope John. Advisor to Paul II and the current new pope. Ten years ago he wrote a short book called "In the Origin of the World: The Catholic Position on God's Creation and the Fall of Man." The book writes: "Microbiology and biological sciences have brought revolutionary insights on the issue of evolution... The emergence of life is a grand plan, not due to accidents and mistakes... Natural science Pointing to the ultimate cause of creation, it shows that there is an intelligent Creator, and that is shown more today than ever before.”

Risinger's views can be divided into three points: 1. He believes that the ontology of nature indeed shows that it is purposeful and created by design; 2. What he points out is natural evidence, not evidence from philosophy, theology or the Bible. ; 3. He quoted biochemistry as the basis for his conclusion, "the study of the molecular basis of life." In this article, I will explain why I think Risinger’s point of view is correct.

Limitations of Evolution

Since Darwin published "The Origin of Species" in 1859, there have been many discussions about the nature of life. In this book, Darwin proposed the unprecedented insight that complex and diverse life forms arise from simple organisms through a disordered natural evolution process, that is, natural selection amidst so-called "random change."

Darwin believed that not all individuals within a species can survive and reproduce because there is not enough food to meet the survival needs of all individuals. Therefore, he believed that those individuals who are more likely to survive due to accidental mutations, if these mutations can be inherited, the characteristics of these species will change over time. If a long time passes, greater changes may occur.

Darwin's theory was an ingenious idea. Yet even mid-nineteenth-century biologists knew that there were many microbial systems that evolution could not explain, and one of them was the eye. Biologists at that time knew that the structure of the eye was very complex. If an animal was born without a certain part of the eye structure, its vision would be greatly reduced or even invisible at all. At that time, these scientists had already doubted how such a complex visual system could be integrated one by one in the many steps claimed by the theory of evolution.

Darwin also knew this about eyes. In his book On the Origin of Species, there is a chapter called "An Organ of Extreme Perfection and Complexity" in which he admits that he does not know how eyes could have evolved. But he mentioned that if you look at modern organisms, you will know the diversity; some organisms do not have "eyes" in their bodies, just a patch of photoreceptor cells. The arrangement and distribution of these photoreceptor cells enable the organism to know whether it is in light or dark, but it cannot know from which direction the light is coming. Because light coming from any direction can stimulate these photoreceptor cells.

Darwin went on to write: "If you could place these photoreceptors in a small recess, as is the case in some modern organisms, light coming from a certain direction would cast a shadow on some of the photoreceptors and on others. The cells are illuminated. In this way, the organism can theoretically determine which direction the light is coming from." Darwin's use of this idea led many of his contemporaries to believe that there was a gradual development. The evolutionary path: from extremely simple photoreceptor cells to extremely complex vertebrate eyes. If evolution can explain the evolution of the eye, and so on, what else can't be explained?

However, Darwin left one question unanswered - where did these photoreceptor cells come from? Darwin dismissed this. "The question of how a nerve cell becomes sensitive to light is not at all important compared with the origin of life," he wrote.

The unknown "black box"

The mechanism of vision and the origin of life are two issues that have attracted considerable attention in scientific research in the past half century. However, Darwin refused to answer the question of where the photoreceptor cells came from. This is for a reason-the science at that time did not Practical or conceptual tools are sufficient to study this problem. If you want to know the state of scientific research in the mid-nineteenth century, think about atoms. Atoms are the basis of all science, but at that time it was only a theoretical concept, and no one knew for sure that atoms actually existed. We now know that cells are the basis of life, but at the time people thought they were nothing more than a simple mass of protoplasm. Therefore, Darwin refused to solve the problem and put it into a "black box" in the hope that future discoveries would confirm his theory.

When people see a "black box" operating, they have a psychological tendency to think that this "black box" must operate according to some simple mechanism - it must be very simple inside and the principle of operation is easy to understand. . However, after this century's huge advances in biology, we know that things are not as they say.

Now that modern science has opened the black box of the cell, we should reexplain the problem that stumbled Darwin. What is needed to create a photosensitive spot? What happens when a photoelectron hits the retina?

In fact, when a photoelectron hits the retina, it interacts with an organic molecule called II-CIS-retina. The shape of the retina is originally very curved, but when it interacts with electrons, it straightens out, causing isomerization. This indicates that a series of events occurred to create the visual image. When the retina changes shape, it forces the protein bodies attached to it to change shape as well, exposing the attachment points of the protein sensors on the retina.

irreducible composition

Although most people think that the next series of visual steps are extremely complicated, many of them have actually been omitted. For example, I haven't discussed recovery of the visual system—how it returns to its starting state, ready for the next photoelectron. However, I believe that what Darwin and his contemporaries considered simple problems were actually extremely complex - much more complex than Darwin could have imagined!

So how do we prove that eyes or other organs are too complex to be explained by Darwinian evolution? In fact, Darwin himself has given us a criterion for judging whether his theory is correct or not. In his book On the Origin of Species, he wrote: "If it could be shown that any complex organ existed, which had not been formed by a great number of successive modifications in small steps, my theory would be absolutely unable to do so. Established.

Is there any organ or system that could not have been formed by "extreme, continuous, small steps of variation"? Please allow me to explain here what "irreducible complexity" is. It sounds mysterious, but it's actually a very simple concept. For example, in my book "Darwin's Black Box: The Challenge of Biological Sciences to the Theory of Evolution", I pointed out that an "irreducible composite" system is: a single system composed of several well-coordinated and interacting parts that can achieve a certain goal. function, and when one part of it is removed, the entire system cannot function properly.

Let me give an example of a mousetrap to illustrate. A mousetrap usually contains a wooden board (fixing board), and other parts are fixed on it. There is also a spring with one end attached to the board and the other end attached to a clip. When the mousetrap is opened, a grab bar is used to secure the clip. The end of the grab bar is fixed on a piece of metal grapple, and all parts are held together by a hook lock. If these mouse traps are missing a spring, clip, or retaining plate, they will not be able to trap mice at all. This is the so-called "irreducible complexity".

Such composite systems are a headache for those who adhere to Darwinian evolution, because they do not form through many gradual, step-by-step mutations. For example, if we want to obtain a complete mousetrap through evolution, can we start from the fixed plate? Or is it more effective to add a grab bar? No! We can't do that because if the mousetrap is incomplete, it won't work at all.

Biochemistry challenges evolution

You may ask: So, are there any biological systems, cellular systems or biochemical systems that are "irreducible complex systems" like what you just said? The answer is: yes! And there are many!

Take bacterial flagella as an example. Basically, it's an external motor that makes the bacteria swim around, like the motor that drives a motorboat. The bacterial flagellum is a rotating device that applies pressure to a liquid medium, causing the bacteria to swim. The propeller device of the flagellum is an elongated whip-like structure made of protein. The propeller is made of another protein attached to a drive rod, which allows both the propeller and the drive shaft to rotate freely. The drive shaft is connected to a rotary motor, which uses a flow of acidic material from the outside of the bacteria into the inside as energy. The drive rod needs to pass through the bacterial septum, which is possible using several different proteins as backing rings.

The above description may make you think that bacterial flagella are quite complicated, but in fact they are much more complicated than what we said above! This situation is very unfavorable to Darwin's theory and is simply a stumbling block.

imaginary doctrine

I did not discover the bacterial flagellum, nor did I discover its operating mechanism. It was the result of decades of research by researchers in many laboratories around the world. If Darwin's theory couldn't explain the structure of these molecular machines, what other scientists could think differently? The answer to this question can be found in the Special Issue on Molecular Evolution. This is a good academic special issue, and there are about forty scientists on the editorial board, about fifteen of whom are also members of the National Academy of Sciences.

If you open this recent special issue at random, you will find that most of the papers are talking about "ranking analysis". Simply put, proteins, molecular machines, are made up of sequences of amino acids in different orders. If one knows the order of amino acids in a protein (or gene), one can compare it with a similar protein from another species to see how the order is the same, similar, or different. For example, comparing the order of hemoglobin (the protein that carries oxygen in the blood) in dogs and horses can tell how closely related the two species are.

This is interesting, but we should keep in mind that comparing the ordering of amino acids does not allow us to conclude that a complex molecular machine like the bacterial flagellum is capable of producing the "small steps" required by Darwin's theory. For example: say you compare the front legs of a dog and a horse. You find that they have the same number of bones, arranged in the same way. This may be an interesting discovery for you, and you may conclude that dogs and horses are very closely related; but when you compare the front legs of dogs and horses, you have no way of knowing where their front leg bones come from. .

To know the answer, you have to build models, do experiments...etc. However, in the "Special Issue on Molecular Evolution", no such model or experiment was mentioned in the papers in the past ten years. The vast majority of papers are related to amino acid sequencing analysis. What I want to say is that sequencing analysis is interesting and can tell us a lot of information, but it alone cannot prove that complex molecular machines can be produced according to Darwin's theory of evolution.

It's the same story if you look at other special issues, like Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Cell, Special Issues on Molecular Biology, etc. In his book "On the Origin of Species", Darwin repeatedly called on readers to use imagination; but imagination is a two-edged sword. An imaginative person may see things that others do not see, but he may also see things that are not there originally. Darwin's theory of evolution has become trapped in an imaginary world and cannot extricate itself.

Understanding smart design

In fact, people have long criticized Darwin's theory of evolution. Many scientists have commented that the biochemistry of living organisms is extremely complex and cannot be explained by Darwin's theory of evolution. Going a step further, many scientists also point out that there are few true explanations of the molecular basis of life in the scientific literature. Stuart Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute, James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, and Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts all claimed that natural evolution does not provide a good explanation for some aspects of life phenomena.

My perspective differs from other scholars who criticize evolution. My paper states that when people see a molecular machine like a bacterial flagellum, they assume it was designed by an intelligent designer. My views like this have attracted attention, and some of my critics have pointed out that I am Catholic and have suggested that the idea of an Intelligent Designer is religious, not scientific. I cannot agree with this criticism because our conclusion that life was designed by an intelligent designer is based entirely on experiment; that is, it is based entirely on natural evidence.

For example, you and a friend are walking in the woods, and suddenly your friend's ankle is wrapped around a cane and he is hanging in the air! Once you cut the cane and let go of your friend, you investigate the scene. You found that the cane was tied to a big branch. The big branch was bent and nailed to the ground. The cane was covered by leaves, so you didn't see it before. You can quickly conclude from these situations that this is not an accident, but a well-designed trap. You made this conclusion not out of religious belief, but out of solid evidence.

So, who designed this trap? After a minute of thinking, we realized that we didn't have enough information to answer this question. However, by observing how the various parts of the trap work in harmony, we know that it was designed.

When was this trap made? We found that there was insufficient information to answer this question. But no matter what, we can still know through observation: this is a trap designed by people.

To get to the bottom of it, additional information is needed; but the fact that this trap was designed is indeed something we can observe. Although we can quickly and intuitively see intelligent design, we can also use a very academic and rigorous approach. Philosophical mathematician William Dembski has given people a good start in his monograph. He uses scientific and philosophical rigorous methods to treat the problem of intelligent design.

All in all, I should echo Risinger's statement mentioned at the beginning of this article, which, in my opinion, is based on rigorous experimental observation: "The creation of life is a grand plan, not accident and error... . Natural science points to the ultimate cause of creation and shows that there is an intelligent Creator, and that is so now more than ever..."

Author profile

Michael J. Behe is a professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, USA. He has published more than 35 articles in biochemistry journals; in addition, he is a staff writer for the Boston Review, the American Observer, and the New York Times. His book "Darwin's Black Box" has been reviewed by more than 100 international publications and was recently nominated by the US National Review and World magazines as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century.

Translator profile

Ren Jun, from Fujian, China, received a master's degree in geography and statistics from the State University of New Jersey. Currently, he and his wife Zheng Yuzhen are studying for a Master of Divinity at The Evangelical Theological Seminary (ATS) and serving in the New Jersey Rogue Church.