Profs debate design theory

By: Ji Ma and Steve McReynolds

Posted: 2/16/05

Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and thought by many to be the chief proponent in the intelligent design movement, battled Vincent Cassone, department head of biology at Texas A&M University regarding the key points of the controversial intelligent design theory Tuesday evening in Rudder Auditorium.

Intelligent design is the theory that certain aspects of the natural world were created by a source of intelligence for a specific purpose, rather than evolving from random patterns.

As applied to biology, Behe said the design is not a mystical process, but is deduced from solid physical and empirical findings, whereas Darwin's theory of evolution appeared to have glaring holes.

The heart of the intelligent design theory is what Behe termed "irreducible complexity," or the idea that an object must be taken in its entirety to function.

"If you are missing a part, it does not just work half well; it doesn't work at all," he said.

Behe argued that this is the evidence objects are created for a certain purpose, but not by random chance. He added that Darwin's Theory relies entirely on the notion that all parts of an organism evolved from a series of small alterations, and an irreducibly complex object cannot be obtained by changing another object in small increments.

Cassone challenged Behe's notions of irreducibly complex objects, specifically in the definition of it. He argued in detail from the perspective of genetics and the dominant and recessive traits, and pointed out that traits are not unique to each individual.

"By that alone, nothing in a diploid organism can be irreducibly complex," Cassone said.

Behe used the example of a mousetrap as an irreducibly complex object, and said that when any part of the mousetrap is removed, the mousetrap can no longer function as intended, and thus the mousetrap cannot be obtained by a series of gradual modifications.

Behe extended this point to the field of biology by drawing a comparison between the mousetrap to the flagellum of bacteriums and blood clotting mechanisms, explaining how each system contains many complex parts that are each essential to its function.

Cassone said many of the parts that make up life, such as genes, are interchangeable, and many are duplicated within one organism. He drew a comparison between a Venus fly trap to a round-leafed sundew, both of which are carnivorous plants. Cassone pointed out many similarities between the two organisms, and said one may have evolved from the other.

Cassone also questioned the "intelligence" of intelligent design, and pointed out many parts of the human body are not very logical, such as the blind spot, the human knee and the necessity for Vitamin C.

Both professors stayed on the defensive position, with Behe arguing that the best scientists cannot formulate an explanation or model complex parts, while Cassone attacked Behe's definition of irreducible complexity.

Religion was not mentioned until the end of the debate.

"Science cannot deny the existence of a creator," Cassone said. "We cannot use science to affirm one."

Cassone said that a large portion of the intelligent design theory was muddled with religion and politics.

"I believe that science should be outside these realms, and that's why I came here tonight," he said, at which point he received a standing ovation from a portion of the audience.

Sophomore biochemistry major Ryan Baxter said that both sides of the controversial debate were presented well.

"For me it was interesting to leave all biases behind and go in with a free mind," he said.

Carlos Arredondo, a senior philosophy major, disagreed with Baxter, and said the professors were arguing about details.

"I think there are deeper issues," he said.

Matt Gamel, a graduate math student sided with Behe's theories, and was frustrated with Cassone's suggestion that religious people did not come to the debate to learn about science.

The debate was a part of the fifth annual Veritas Forum.