The Flagellum Brief
A contrast of evolution and Intelligent Design
By: Dan
Dawson
3-26-04
Proof: the evidence or
argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
Introduction
In 1833, a British naturalist named Charles Darwin
explored a small island chain in the South Pacific called the Galapagos. On these small islands he found extreme
diversity in individual animal populations.
One diverse group of animals that he sighted was the native finch
species. He observed and documented
many different sizes and shapes of finch beaks. This discovery led him to believe some years later that a process
he called Natural Selection actively selected an organism with positive
physical traits to pass on those traits to the next generation, thereby
improving their survival. The positive
traits would accumulate through the generations, which would eventually result
in the development of a different species.
In 1859, Darwin published this “theory of evolution” in his book titled
“Origin of Species.” Recent advances in
genetics and microbiology have lead many scientists to doubt the plausibility
of Darwin’s hypothesis. Modern
scientific studies prove that Intelligent Design is a much more probable theory
than Darwin’s “Evolution by Natural Selection”. This brief uses the bacterial flagellum to support the likelihood
of intelligent design.
Charles Darwin
http://javalab.cs.uni-bonn.de/research/darwin/images/darwin.jpg
Natural Selection
The theory of evolution via natural selection was
Darwin’s speculation of the evolution of all species from the first organism
(the protist). Darwin’s theory of
evolution was based on time, chance, and natural selection. He believed that these undirected natural
forces could produce biological changes in a species if given enough time. Natural selection can only work if an animal
exists to reproduce and pass on positive traits. Darwin’s theory of evolution via natural selection tries to
answer the question of where species came from, but cannot deal with the
question of where life came from.
In his time, Darwin was a competent observer of
the facts of nature. However, Darwin
had no idea about the almost inconceivable complexity of cells or the
breakthroughs in genetic studies when he published his book The Origin of
Species. At the time, it was widely
believed among the biologists that the cell consisted of a simple globule of
protoplasm and cellular function wasn’t hard to explain at all.
Gregor Mendel,
Father of Genetics
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/classes/bio352/mendel.jpg
Later on, Mendel’s genetic
studies showed information content and incredible complexity within cells. Advances in cellular research began to
uncover the vast complexities of the cell and the many organelles that
performed different specialized tasks needed for a cell to function. Work in cellular biology and biochemistry
revealed the immense complexity found in amino acids, proteins, and the
structure of the DNA molecule.
A major problem with Darwin’s theory is that it
only deals with minor changes that occur on a small scale, such as an organism
growing a beak with a different shape.
His theory cannot deal with major changes, like where life originates,
because a lifeless piece of matter cannot undergo natural selection. Darwin concluded that complex systems defied
natural selection. Even he realized
the limitations of his own theory. He
said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could
not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my
theory would absolutely break down.”
Genetic and cellular biochemistry research in the last two decades has
in fact absolutely broken down his theory.
A
genetic scientist at work.
http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/world/images/viralab.jpg
Intelligent Design
Complex systems defy natural selection because of
the order and complexity of their makeup.
Modern scientists such as Michael Behe have introduced a concept known
as irreducible complexity. Irreducible
complexity means that something must be built with all it’s parts intact to
function and it cannot work if even one of its parts is removed or
missing. Irreducible complexity clashes
with evolution via natural selection for the following reason. Imagine that an animal developed some type
of structure, and that the function of the structure increased the animal’s
probability of survival. How can the
parts of the structure evolve through natural selection if they by themselves
cannot contribute anything towards the survival of the organism? They cannot. Rather, it is the assemblage of the whole of the parts that
produces a functional structure and a survival benefit that will be passed on
by natural selection. Consider the
following specific example.
The Bacterial Flagellum
The bacterial flagellum is a structure that
provides movement for an animal. It has
been compared by many to an outboard motor.
It has a molecular rotary motor with all the essential parts for
functionality: a U joint, a spindle, brushes, drive shaft, and stator. Like an outboard motor, it requires all
parts for it to be functional. The
motor is composed of 40 different protein parts: 30 of which are unique to the
The Bacterial
Flagellar Motor
http://www.counterbalance.net/media/flglm-lg.jpg
flagellar motor. How can the machine parts evolve when the
motive function that increases survival does not exist until all parts are in
place? By the rules of natural
selection: THEY CAN’T. In fact, natural
selection can’t deal with this predicament.
On the other hand, Intelligent Design proposes that the parts were
designed to function in the order and manor in which they do.
Furthermore, it’s not only the parts of the
molecular rotary motor that are unique; the machines inside the cell that are
used to make the parts are also irreducibly complex. Information in the form of RNA tells these machines which
proteins to sequence. This then
provides the cell with a new, functional protein that is then folded into its
usable form. If the protein isn’t
assembled in a very specific order, which varies between each protein, the
protein cannot be folded. It becomes
unstable and cannot be used in the cell for any purpose whatsoever. Irreducible Complexity is demonstrated in
multiple levels, that is, the parts and the manufacturing processes, thus
further strengthening the argument for Intelligent Design.
The Controversy between
Intelligent Design and Natural Selection
Intelligent design has met a lot of resistance in
the scientific community. Scientists
have defined “science” with the term “methodological naturalism”, meaning that
only natural sources are considered in the evolution of species, and that
design and intelligence are part of religion instead of science. However, many scientific fields must be
based on design and intelligence: archeology only recognizes valid artifacts
because they contain evidence of an intelligent source. Archeologists use a set of rules to
distinguish artifacts from non-artifacts.
They search for improbable objects or events that provide recognizable
patterns. That is what differentiates
the Sphinx from a rock or a sand dune.
By definition, information content implies intelligent design.
The Arecibo
installation
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/images/arecibo.gif
The search for life not of this planet has been
carried out by SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). They monitor the radio waves coming from
different galaxies and stars, closely listening for a distinguishable pattern
that could indicate intelligence.
Evolutionary scientists would rule out SETI as a scientific study, not
to mention the field of archeology.
Both of these fields would be instantly disavowed as being scientific
pursuits because their primary purpose in both cases is to find what pattern
intelligence has left behind.
The Natural Selection Scientists’ point of view
was that all things were composed of matter or energy. The intelligent design theory has introduced
a third category - that of information - vast information in the form of DNA
for example. Evolutionary Scientists
are accepting their own theories by faith, even though the evidence from
science and modern biological research does not support their beliefs. This makes their approach more like a
religion than science, and in essence, breaks their own rules of methodological
naturalism for distinguishing between what is and isn’t scientific
research.
Consequences and
Conclusions
The theory of evolution, which ignores scientific
fact, makes man only an animal produced by random chance and not accountable to
any moral authority such as a designer.
This may account for its popularity among people who do not wish to be
accountable to any moral rules. The
results of evolutionary beliefs are rampant in our society: sexual immorality,
the destruction of the sanctity of marriage, and the murder of tens of millions
of innocent babies. On the other hand,
intelligent design requires a designer.
The knowledge of the presence of a designer makes the normal person ask
questions such as, “Where did I come from; why do I exist; was I
designed?”
In this brief, we have reviewed two theories, one
based on observations made in a time when the understanding of cellular-biology
and genetics as we know them today didn’t exist, and the other based on facts
and the results of modern scientific studies.
The fact is that you must deny the evidence of modern science to believe
in evolutionism. Intelligent design,
however, is completely in agreement with modern science in all respects. It is now up to you to decide, based upon
the proof we have displayed, which theory you will believe. Choose wisely.
Works
Cited List
1. “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” DVD Video, Illustra
Media, 2002.
2. Darwin, Charles. “Origin of Species” 1859
3. Holy Bible, New International Version; International
Bible Society, 2004.
4. Behe, Michel. “Darwin’s Black Box” Free Press March
20, 1998.
5.
Methodological Naturalism. Craig Rusbolt, Ph.D. 2003,
