Supreme Court Diversity, Justice Sotomayor and GMOs.

Supreme Court Diversity, Justice Sotomayor and GMOs.

When I hear someone call for diversity these days, I am never sure which way the intent is directed.  But this I read a while back and gave pause.  Justice Sotomayor said in an interview at Brooklyn Law School, “I, for one, do think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school (on the Supreme Court).”  

Here we have a justice calling for a different kind of diversity on the Supreme Court.  And it makes sense.  She seems to suggest that Justices from other law schools may bring different perspectives.  This is sorely needed.  

In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that “Monsanto may sue a farmer whose field  was accidentally contaminated with Monsanto materials.”  On the surface this seems to make some sense.  There is a patent by Monsanto which protects the GMO seeds which they have developed.  GM surely has thousands of patents to protect devices they have developed for their cars.  

There is a problem here.  Cars are a material object created by humans.  But seeds and the way these function have been developed over millions of years by Nature to assure their survival and success.  To give the right to a company to sue for what Nature has been doing since, well, since the earth cooled, displays a level of ignorance or complicity which is nothing short of scary.  How can it be ignorance?  

We live now in Georgia and where we live can have some strange wind patterns.  Often in the morning the wind comes from the west, later on from the south and occasionally from the east and once in a while from the north.  The seeds I plant can conceivably be contaminated from a large area.  I could plant trees around the border and this would reduce the chances of cross pollination but certainly would not end it.  So the ignorance rests on the utter cluelessness of how weather can work with Nature.  How a farmer’s heritage seeds can be contaminated by “an act of God”.  The Supreme Court Justices might alter their views, if they understood farming.  There is also the danger in allowing a company to have a patent for a seed and give them the right to check another farmer’s field without permission or knowledge.

This ruling clearly is for the benefit of giant companies to be able to control who manages the food supply, not just for the USA but for the entire world.  This is where complicity comes in.  It is illogical to assume that when someone becomes a Supreme Court Justice that they delete their past, their past of employment, their past education, their past views.  After all, who and what each of us is depends on what we read, studied, heard and where we worked.

So when this ruling was made, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion.  From 1976- 1979 Thomas worked as a corporate lawyer for Monsanto.  This, to me, is a serious conflict of interest.  He did not recuse himself.  It appears that members of the Supreme court are exempt from having to recuse themselves, when a case comes up in which a former associate or employer is involved.  They are permitted to evaluate their own obligation to recuse themselves.  A rather convenient arrangement.  

Justice Thomas has received gifts from groups which support programs such as those developed by Monsanto.  $15,000 bucks from American Enterprise Institute which opposes regulations on GMOs,  speaking engagements at organizations which also oppose GMO regulations.

So it seems that integrity is not only lacking in Congress and the Executive branch but also the Judiciary.  This is scary because one thing, it seems to me, preserves what freedoms we have and that is the fact that one branch of government is supposed to watch the other.  This conflict between the three branches has kept them off of our backs, for the most part, for more than two centuries.  

There is not much doubt that corporations play a huge part in elections, in both parties.  This is clear when we see how Senators respond and how Congress people respond and how Presidents respond. President Obama appointed Michael Taylor to run the FDA.  Where did he work previous to his appointment?  He was a lobbyist for Monsanto!

Who appoints Justices?  The President.  Where do they come from?  Many from corporations, major power interests.  President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.  Where did he work?  For a company which defends corporations.

Just exactly where in all this are the interests of the country as a whole defended?  

Modern Epicureans as Anti-intellectuals

Current argument by some claim that there are certain matters settled and beyond dispute.  I agree that some issues come under this group:  the distance of the sun from the Earth, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  There are hundreds of others.  But there are some problems which science, for example, faces which are at least questionable. 

Lets change subjects for a moment and think about the ideas of Marcus Tullius Cicero.  He wrote a book, On the Nature of the Gods in 45 BC.  It consists of a dialogue between Cicero, his friends, Balbus, Velleius and Cotta.  Cicero narrates but hardly participates in the discussion.  As though he sits at the side, follows the conversation and thinks of what is said.

Velleius submits the argument of the Epicureans who argued that only things exist. And these things, atoms are constantly shifting about and that no object ever remains the same.  He carries his argument to all areas. God does not exists for God does not consist of atoms.  The ideas in your head can not be the same as those in mine.  Pleasure and pain determine how we act, why we act (because only atoms, physical objects interact).  Thus we seek pleasure but avoid pain.  No one does something for country because it is right but because there is some personal advantage for doing so.  Such as saving the country to protect one’s own property.  Any argument or piece of litarature outside of these limits is not worthy of study.

One of the characters in the dialogue, Balbus, a Stoic, critiques Velleius’ points.  Balbus makes the case that Epicureanism tends to be dogmatic- here is the list of what is true, learn it and then one will know; that here is no need for knowledge outside of what the senses provide, because Epicurus (the founder of Epicureanism) has transmitted to all posterity what is true and what is false; that Epicurus saw no need for examining any other system of thought or anyone else’s ideas; that any system which disputes Epicurus is not just wrong, but foolish; that Epicureanism has the tendency to argue that the matter is settled and case is closed.  Balbus is extensive in his arguments to refute Velleius and Epicureanism.  

But all this leads to a question about Epicureanism.  If it had gained ascendency and had the power to enforce its views, would it be tolerant of different views?  After all does dogma see any need for dispute?  Epicureanism never says that it appears to be correct but that it is correct. 

At the end of the dialogue, Cicero says that he favors the Stoics but realizes that upon further study, he may change his mind.

My concerns is that if only things exist and constantly change how can love or justice or courage be nailed down?  It would be like nailing jelly to a tree (as Dick Goddard used to say). In fact how can any aspect of life be understood in any way except as objects of matter?

It seems to me that modern liberals (I despise the use of that word- it is derived from Latin, liber-free, al- pertaining to. pertaining to the essence of what freedom is.  But it is the word in vogue, so here we go.)  modern liberals are much like the followers of Epicurus.  First they are followers, they deny any value to an idea which questions theirs.  They hurl snide remarks at those who offer a different perspective (as Velleius does in Cicero’s book), there is no need for discussion, no need for debate and certainly no need for study of anything but accepted liberal views.  In the end Epicureans and modern liberals are curiously anti-intellectual.  And had they ascended to indisputable preeminence, no ideas but their own would be tolerated.

It is interesting and telling that Epicureans saw little of value in Cicero’s ideas.  Yet, it was Cicero who took advantage of an opportunity to save the school in Athens which Epicurus set up, because Cicero felt that all systems of thought deserved a reading and study.  Ironic is it not?  Or is it?

674. The Swerve by Stephen Greenblatt- summary

674.  The Swerve by Stephen Greenblatt. There are two parts to this review.  First part.  The author shows in a very engaging way how the search for ancient Roman texts began and how it was pursued by the likes of Petrarch, Poggio, Salutati and others.  It was also interesting to see the road blocks to the survival of texts.  One was lack of interest in what ancient books had to say, another was out right hostility to what the books had to say and another just as dangerous (and more permanent in a way)were book worms.  Now I know from my own reading of ancient Roman libraries that they developed ways to preserve books besides the obvious method of making new copies.  They used cedar oil to repel insects, developed a special brick which reduced the amount of moisture which penetrated the walls of a library, they also used papyrus made from plants which grow in Egypt and vellum which is animal skin or even intestines.  These methods must have ceased to play a part on library book maintenance.  Many books were vellum (animal skin) which is a very durable material.  However many books were lost because vellum was highly prized and expensive, consequently ancient texts served another purpose which was very destructive- the script of an ancient text was scraped off and the vellum reused for another purpose.  Makes me , a Classicist, very sad even to say these words let alone type them.  So the door through which Latin texts survived was rather slim.  But some did survive. 

He also covers the internal argument early Christians had with reading pagan literature.  They admired the charm of classical literature but in many cases despised the thoughts or views.  Ancient Romans had few thoughts or views which had to be kept secret. So their minds ranged far and wide on a number of topics and many invigorating ideas were written down to be shared with others.  In early Christianity dogma was the main thrust of religion- the ruling class of priests gave instruction on what was to be learned and understood, maintained strict control over the flow of ideas and restriction to sources of knowledge such as libraries.  Hence libraries were located in monasteries.  There the books were kept and not just anyone was allowed to visit the books.  But blessing upon blessing (in a way) it was felt that monks should either farm or other such labor or copy texts if they had the skill.  So into the scriptorium they went and copied texts-  In some areas books were very scarce, so books were copied again and again, the same books.  The mere task was sufficient.  So books in one sense were valuable, even ancient texts.  These too were copied.  Then placed on shelves and restricted to qualified visitors.  Must have been a lonely life being a book.  Into this world enters Poggio Bracciolini.  He was not a priest but worked for the Vatican/Popes in various capacities- eventually as Apostolic Secretary to the Pope.  Here he had access to money and connections.  When he lost his job because the Pope for which he was secretary was forced to resign he began his search for texts; ancient Roman texts.  In 1417 at the monastery at Fulda he pulled the long neglected and thought lost volume of De Rerum Nature by Titus Lucretius Carus.

I only mention in passing the grim tales of punishment and torture meted out to those who denied church authority or remarked on forbidden topics.  A review of such things tends to give the impression that there may be pleasure in the telling.  So go else where if those things interest you (some are detailed in The Swerve).  But all these things - difficulty of access to monasteries and their libraries, molding and rotting books, suppression of ideas and lack of interest in search for the new Poggio ignored or overcame and off he went and brought back to the world De Rerum Natura.  This part of the book I enjoyed very much.

2nd part.

The basic tenets of Epicureanism/Lucretius are, according to Greenblatt:

Everything is made of invisible particles
the elementary particles of matter are eternal
the elementary particles are infinite in number but limited in size and shape
all particles are in motion an infinite void
the universe has no creator or designer
everything comes into beginning as a result of a swerve
the swerve is the source of free will
nature never stops experimenting
the universe is not created for or about humans
humans are not unique
human society began not in a Golden Age of tranquillity and plenty but in a primitive battle for survival
the soul dies
there is no afterlife
death is nothing to us
all organized religions are superstitious delusions
religions are invariably cruel
the highest goal of life is the enhancement of pleasure and the reduction of pain
the greatest obstruction to pleasure is not pain but delusion

Greenblatt then says that understanding the nature of things generates wonder and the other philosophical systems do not generate this wonder.  By wonder I think he means asking questions.

There are some problems here.  

These problems lead me to another author which Greenblatt mentions but only is a minor way- Marcus Tullius Cicero.  Cicero wrote a work entitled:  On the Nature of the Gods.  Three philosophical systems (Epicurean, Stoic, Academic) present their view of divinity and the part divinity plays in our lives.  Then one of the members of the discussion group finds as many flaws in that argument as possible.  The dialog is very interesting because the conclusion is left somewhat open at the end.  Cicero says that the Stoic view seems the best but clearly indicates that he is open to further discussion and perhaps maybe a different conclusion.  To avoid going on too long, Cicero's arguments against Epicureanism are so powerful that it seems strange that none of these criticisms of Epicureanism are addressed.  One of the biggest is this:  What caused this swerve?  After all luck is what science has striven to eliminate from an understanding of nature.  Greenblatt mentions it and then lets it drop and then claims that Lucretius' system of thought promotes wonder.  Well, what about the wonder involved in the swerve?  What caused that?  A cough? Sneeze?  A temporary bleep in the powers of the universe?  An eternal particle got confused?  I am being silly but I hope for a purpose.  A fundamental problem of Epicureanism is swept aside and then lack of wonder is heaped upon other systems of thought.  As a Phd in Humanities at Harvard I think that he has/had an obligation to address the issue.

Greenblatt seems devoted to piecing together his puzzle without any spare pieces left.  In other words all has to fit tightly together.  He completely ignores the tendency of Epicureanism to be dogmatic.  He does say so in one short sentence but the subject is dropped and dogmatism is leveled at the Catholic church.  I am convinced that the Catholic Church once was dogmatic, more or less published a list of rules and attempted to enforce their acceptance.  I admit that this was wrong.  I also insist that the tense I am using should mean something.  BUT Epicureanism as Cicero makes very clear in his on the Nature of the Gods and in his work On Moral Ends, Epicureanism had a strong tendency to be dogmatic, too.  Epicurus was so sure that he was right that as a result he did not see a need for any other system of though or approach to the argument but his own.  Any system which disputed his was not just wrong but foolish.  Now we could go on and on- for each system is convinced it is right.  But a good test question would be this:  If Epicureanism reached supremacy and had power of enforcement behind it, would it be tolerant of different views?  Does dogma see any need for dispute?  Does it not have the tendency to say- they debate is over- we have the answer?  Lucretius does not say that it seems his argument is correct- he says it is correct.  Cicero says that the argument he accepts appears to be correct but perhaps later after further review another argument may prevail.  This may seem petty and picky but it seems to me that a large ocean separates the two.  And leads in different directions- Cicero's argument drives one to search and wonder looking at any system of thought which may spread light on the situation, Epicurus sees no need to consult any one else.  It would be difficult to argue and be convincing that Cicero's way would lead to dogma.  But one can say that Epicureanism has a tendency for dogma.  I wonder too, if Epicureanism had triumphed at the end of antiquity, would it have had devotees driven to find lost texts which disputed Epicurean views?

It is also a tad bothersome to me when Greenblatt says that Lucretius was the only philosopher who despised enforcement of ideas via nightmares of the afterlife as was done apparently by the early Catholic Church.  Cicero spends much time debunking such things in his Tusculan Disputations.

Greenblatt ignores the problem that if all things change all the time and only things exist, how can one define courage? Love? Justice? Does these exist only in so far that they serve the interests of pleasure?

Much of Epicureanism involves withdrawal from society.  To them the material world is meaningless- acquisition of property, valuable.  I have no problem with someone's right to do so but just exactly who will provide the wealth needed for such a person to withdraw to?  To put it another way to what would they withdraw if everyone withdraws? Does it not seem odd that a philosophy says that only things exist, yet things are meaningless?  It just may be that Epicurus had answers but Greenblatt does not.

He also does not discuss the problem created by Lucretius-if Epicureanism is a release from the fears of life is it also in some way a release from the obligations of life? - by obligations I mean to the needs of others if we are busy seeing to our own pleasure?

There may be answers to these questions and perhaps can thoroughly refuted, but they are not present in this work.

At the end Greenblatt suggests that Thomas Jefferson was guided by Epicureanism when he wrote that we have a right to the "pursuit of happiness".  It appears that what he did was take the word happiness which Epicurus used and assumed that the same word was used by Jefferson in the same way.  However, this completely denies or ignores that all the ancient philosophical systems wrestled with what happiness was and how to achieve it.  Greenblatt also seems to ignore those words which precede these- "endowed by their creator".  It seems to me that first Greenblatt must prove or demonstrate that Jefferson put those words in as a flare or fanciful flourish.  Then he must show that Jefferson meant a reference to Epicurus by the words- "pursuit of happiness".  He does not.  And from a prof from a great institution I expect more.

637. THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION BY MICHAEL BEHE.- summary

637.  THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION BY MICHAEL BEHE.

Darwin's theory of evolution has three main parts:  common descent, random genetic mutation and natural selection.  There must be a smooth gradual rising leading to an ever more sophisticated biological system within a reasonable amount of time.
Evolution via changes in DNA is very well supported.  But Behe questions whether it is random.

Behe does not reject Darwinism in toto.

Behe uses studies of malaria to examine Darwinism.  A mosquito which carries malaria bites someone.  It enters the blood stream and stays for a while in the liver.  There is multiplies and enters the bloodstream and enters red blood cells.  It eats the hemoglobin.  It reproduces inside the cell and breaks out of the destroyed cell.  Darwinists say that this is an arms race.  The cell develops way to deal with invader and then invader reacts.  On and on.  The victim becomes weak and more sick and often dies.  One becomes anemic.  Hemoglobin carries the oxygen.  The cell's solution was to change amino acid number 6.  This is called the sickle cell disease.  It is viewed as something awful however, this cell, sickle cell if only inherited from one parent gives the possessor safety from  malaria.  Malaria in this cell is detected by the spleen as defective and removed from blood stream.  Someone in Africa had this mutation.  Passed it on to children and that branch survived.  This worked very well until enough people who inherited the single sickle cell began to marry.  Then those children with complete set from both parents contract sickle cell and died.  Another way developed too.  Before birth we have different hemoglobin.  This does not absorb oxygen from air but from mom's umbilical cord.  Just before birth this hemoglobin is exchanged for normal one.  This who have rebirth hemoglobin in large numbers are safe from sickle cell.  This though is not evolution but deterioration.  For those with sickle cell from one parent or rebirth hemoglobin are not as robust or strong just resistant to sickle cell and its dangerous effects.  These genetic changes do not solve the problem and interestingly after thousands of years, sickle cell has not found a way to deal with sickle cell from one parent.  Behe says that this is not an arms race but trench warfare.  Other genetic weapon exist in other areas but all involve a loss of proper cell function. 

How can random change fit with elegant evolution?

Humans developed chloroquine to cure malaria.  Malaria eats the globin of hemoglobin.  Hemo is poisonous to malaria.  Chloroquine allows hem to stay, build up and kill malaria.  Malaria mutated to deal with chloroquine, yet when chloroquine is not used, the malaria bacteria returns to original genetic form.  This story shows that Darwins theory works but at a price.  The mutated cell on both sides is not improved but debased.  Darwin's theory works here because of the billions of cells involved.  This increases chance for genetic mutation.  Mutation is more of a factor of numbers than it is time.  Yet, time is involved here too.  Such numbers are absent in the case of humans. 

Something which is not random must account for the common descent of life.

Out of countless possible mutations, only a very small number work.  And these as seen above decrease the cells function. 

Behe cites warfarin used to kill rats.  Worked great until a single protein allowed rats to have resistance.  But this change too reduced the efficiency of rat cells involved by 50 percent. 

Uses the arctic fish as another example.  None of these lead to increased sophistication. 

The complexity of cellular systems like cilia challenge the concept of random mutation to explain how cells work.  Studies suggest that cilia are essential for correct embryonic development.  How could a slow steady pave of evolution bring together by random chance such sophistication and complexity?  Gradual route randomly achieved mathematically is vitally impossible- or would require more time than the age of the universe.  If Darwinism is a tinkering, then it can not be expected to produce coherent features where a number of separate parts act together for a clear purpose, involving several components.  Again time is not a factor so much as numbers and rate of reproduction. 

With a few minor exceptions the genetic code is the same for all the millions of species on earth.  Building multi component cellular structures one protein at a time is well beyond the edge of evolution.

Behe is not the only one questioning Darwin's theory.  Shapiro and a number of others are coming up with their own explanation.

James Maxwell, famous physicist, believed that there was ether in outer space and this allowed the solar light waves to travel from sun to earth.  He even found math to prove his point.  Later no ether was found.  Ether like the blind watchmaker do not exist.

What caused nonrandom change?
pure chance
laws which predetermined outcome
environment of the earth favored certain random genetic change
intelligent design

Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts.

The molecular developmental program to build an animal must consist of many discrete steps and be profoundly coherent.

Uses fruit fly as example.  An egg is laid. As it develops, one set of proteins triggers proteins to begin development of next part of the fly.  Then those sections have a protein which wakes up other proteins and enzyme to do their job.  Until the fly is complete.  There can be no steps missed or deleted and still have a proper fly.  One step relies on the next.  Steady random genetic mutation does not take into account the dramatic changes required to make humans in so short amount of time.

Is Intelligent Designer the same as God?  Behe says no.  God is a religious concept whereas ID is a scientific grasp of Nature.  But Behe interestingly goes further and fully admits that he is thinking out loud.  But well worth reading. 

He counts as science any conclusion that relies heavily of and exclusively on detailed physical evidence, plus standard logic.  He says that ID fits the bill.  He draws his conclusion from physics, astronomy and biology.  Interesting how he says that astronomy backs him up.  A planet's inhabitability is determined by distance from the sun, kind of sun, location in galaxy, planet can not be too big, not too small, right amount of water, right minerals in the right place, an active core.  It has been suggested by astronomers that our location in the galaxy is crucial.  Too near the center and we would never have come into existence due to excessive radiation.  The moon was crucial too.  Any one of these is probable but all together and many others raises questions about the legitimacy of pure randomness.  The only way out he suggests is an infinite number of worlds.  These defy reality by claiming that any scenario at any time is likely including imagining what we see.  Productive thinking can not even begin.  If true there is no way to trust our own ability to reason.  Such arguments lack mature powers of reasoning.

Why discuss all this?  Finding the edge of evolution will help medicine.  Darwin says that there is a never ending battle of the arms race.  ID says that we need to find the right "monkey wrench" to oppose say malaria than look upon the whole situation as an arms race.

His conclusion reminded me of Pliny the Elder- Natura Deus est.  To look God in the face is to accept the beauty and the plan.

631. The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists. Roy Spencer.- summary

631.  The Great Global Warming Blunder:  How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists.   Roy Spencer.

This book gives a new perspective on global warming.  Dr. Spencer asserts:

1.  IPCC is flawed in that it was formed to show that humans are the cause of global warming. Science says Spencer first notices an issue and then investigates all aspects of the problem.  It is flawed because its premise presupposes the conclusion in the purpose for its formation.

2.  There has yet  to be a debate about global warming and its causes.  Debate is discouraged and contrary views are discouraged.  Dr. Spencer and others have had papers rejected because these do not conform to the mission.

3. The peer review process has failed in that arguments against the concept were discouraged or outright denied presentation.  There is inherent danger in government setting up such organizations.  It becomes a source of  income and becomes for that reason a reason for perpetuation.

4.  IPCC has not thoroughly investigated the effects of natural climate change.  They assume that only external events such as volcanoes or solar effects or human influence are the only means of causing change.

5.  IPCC decided that the earth's climate system is very sensitive to a change in CO2. The premise has not been tested and investigations have not been initiated to challenge their own premise.

6.  Computer modeling only puts out what someone puts in.  And prevents seeing the value of views from other disciplines.   There is something else too which Dr. Spencer refers to in his book.  Disciplines have become so specialized that experts can not see the forest for the trees as he says.  I was thinking as I read his book that astronomers for example no longer use telescopes.  I can understand that and see how that could be the case.  But something is lost when they have no idea how to look through a telescope and find an object.  Something amiss here which does not sound good.

7.  Meteorologists are chided for entering the debate because they only  predict the weather.  Spencer responds that climate is average weather.  In my field of Classics this would be like someone who wants to become an expert on Cicero by studying history and politics but ignoring his principles of rhythmic patterns which come from poetry.  Or trying to become an expert on Virgil with only a smattering of late Republican or early imperial history.  Something which is done by the way with damage to the field in general. 

8.  His view of the earth's climate system sees the earth as an entity which reacts over time to levels of CO2 by adjusting the number of clouds to release heat or hold heat.  This part to me was the most fascinating because his view seems to come very close the Stoic view of the earth.  To Stoics the earth was a living being with a pulse and drive of its own.  I did not expect to hear echos of what I have studied for so many years in a book on climate change.

9.  He posses a question which must make many of those in IPCC fume- is extra CO2 a bad thing?  Perhaps the earth is starved for CO2 locked up by accident in all those deposits of coal and oil.

597. Darwin’s Black Box. Michael Behe.- summary

597.  Darwin’s Black Box. Michael Behe.  I have heard so many negative things about Intelligent Design that I found the fellow who came up with the idea, located his book and read it.  I have never read a book on biochemistry before.I have had a wonderful time.
Darwin’s theory- the survival of the fittest and most adaptable, originally was used to explain the evolution of species of animals but since then it has been used to explain human behavior, and the origin of the cell. Knowledge of biochemistry has made remarkable gains since the time of Darwin. “Molecular machines raise an as yet impenetrable barrier to Darwin’s universal reach.”

 In fact much of what is now known of the cell was unknown in the time of Darwin.  Advances in other sciences have caused the collapse of old theories- many held dear.  This may be the case where Darwin is concerned.  Before jumping to conclusions, one must realize that the author accepts Darwin’s theory of evolution.  He just has serious doubts that it can be used to explain the world of the cell.  Michael Behe says “Darwin’s theory might explain horse hoofs- but can it explain life’s foundation?”
“The complexity of life’s foundation has paralyzed science’s attempt to account for it;  it is now known that biological molecules make up machines.  Each machine has a specialized use.  The question which Behe asks is:  can the existence of these machines be explained by random mutations/natural selection? 
As an historical background Behe gives a series of examples from the past where science went as far as it could go until new equipment allowed further investigation.  This led to correction or abandonment of old ideas and new understanding took their place.  He calls this a series of black boxes.  As one was opened this revealed another black box which could not be opened until new equipment came along.  Aristotle was very observant and brilliant in his assessment but his observations could only go so far.  Leeuwenhoek invented the microscope- it opened up a world which was far more complex than anyone imagined.  Crystallography allowed us to see proteins.  This and other tools allowed biochemists to see the bedrock of cells.  The last block was now open to investigation.  It is this complexity of the cell which has called Darwin into question as far as life’s foundation is concerned.
Darwin was never able to explain how a nerve became sensitive to light and how this led to the development of the eye.  Not because he was stupid but because the kind of details now known equipment of his age did not allow.
Mr. Behe explains in simplified form the manner in which light enters the eye and triggers a series of responses which allows us to see.  This process requires a molecular explanation .  A photon of light hits a protein.  This sets off a set of chain reactions.  Each one dependent upon coordination with other proteins.  All of which work together in a very set order.  There is also another set of reactions which are triggered by the photon of light to continue to make the proteins necessary to keep seeing.  The anatomy of the eye available to Darwin was insufficient to understand the set of proteins necessary to allow us to see. In fact the anatomy of the eye obscures the complexity with which the eye works. Biochemistry has unlocked this black box.
Mr. Behe asserts that for Darwin to be true, his theory must account for the molecular basis of life.

It appears that Michael Behe is not the only one offering challenges to Darwin’s theory.  Lynn Margulis asks those who support Darwin’s theory to name one new species formed by accumulated mutations.  In paleontology digs, dramatic jumps are often shown in the development of a species.  Mathematicians question the time frame required for Darwin’s theory to explain the development of the eye.  One mathematician, Hubert Yockey suggests that life is a given like matter.
Complexity theory offers problems for Darwinists. This theory suggests that many features of a living system are the result of self-organizing to arrange themselves in patterns not natural selection.
Behe suggests that the reason these views have been ignored: scientists worry about giving ammo to creationists- thus in the guise of protecting science, criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.
Too many scientists take Darwin as dogma, instead of as a theory which may need correction. 
As an example Behe cites the eye.  He insists that the complexity of the eye can not be explained by adding one complex system to another.  The problem with all of this is that Darwin’s theory requires a slow steady development.  If any development is rapid- this implies a miracle- for which there is no scientific explanation.
But irreducibly complex biological systems are a challenge to Darwinists.  Why? As complexity increases the likelihood of  chance development drops a whole bunch.  Now a scientist could appeal to brute luck- this of course can not be refuted but luck wanders into the realm metaphysics.  The difficulty lies in gradualness in development- without it one must turn to miracles.  Why?
It lies in the nature of mutation.  Single mutations usually make small change.  But a single mutation cannot change all of the instructions in one step. Evaluating Darwin’s theory can not be done by examining the eye as a unit but it can be done by examining discrete molecular systems.
The easy example Behe gives for irreducible complexity is a mouse trap.  All parts must be present for it to work.  All parts must also be of the correct material to support the needs of each part.  He also discusses that Darwin’s theory requires physical precursors.  A bicycle can not become a motorcycle.  It is a conceptual precursor.  It is not a physical precursor.  Minimal function is also required for Darwinism.
Chapter 3
A cell is operated by molecule machines.  These molecules are mostly made up of proteins.  Proteins carry out chemical reactions.  They are very versatile but usually have one use or at most a few.  Thus each cell has thousands of proteins. 
There can be anywhere from 50 to 1,000 proteins in a chain.  These chains vary in length and each link has different properties.  Some have negative charge, some positive, some are small and some large. Their shapes are turgid.  Thus if two proteins are to join together, they must fit.  If they do not properly fit, they will not function.
Let us look at a molecular machine which allows a one celled animal to swim.  This device is called a cilium.  What is needed to swim constitutes an irreducibly complex system.  This means that if any protein is removed, the cell can not swim.  All aspects of stuff required to swim must match.  One more thing is needed- timing of the working parts and direction.
Can this system have developed gradually?
Each part of a cilium must fit exactly with its neighbor for the cilium to function. “The complexity of the cilium and other swimming systems is inherent in the task itself. “ It is irreducibly complex.  It appears that it came as a unit.  This fact contradicts Darwin’s gradual development.
Dawkins, a Darwinist, suggests that the evolution of the cilium occurred this way.  At some time microtubules (these support motor cells, commonly occur, transport cargo travel along these)  stuck together.  Later, motor proteins accidently acquired ability to push 2 microtubules.  This caused a bending.  It may have helped the cell survive.  Continued small development gradually produced the cilium. 
But Behe asks- how exactly?  A protein which accidently stuck to microtubules would block use of this for travel.  A protein which joins two microtubules would alter the shape.  A fit can not be made if the shapes are not correctly matched.
Behe mentions that there are 10,000 papers published on the cilium.  Only two deal vaguely with evolution.  Both contradict each other.  Both papers lack quantitative details, both papers hoped to prod others to work on the problem.  This did not happen.
For the question of the evolution of the cilium to be answered, details must be supplied.
Cilia contain tubulin, dynein, nexin and numerous other proteins.  If these are placed in a cell which does not have a cilium, these will not produce a functioning cilium.  More is needed than the presence of the parts for the whole to be made.  Cilium has 200 plus different proteins.  As the number of parts increases the likelihood of gradual assembly drops. 
Chapter 4
M. Behe uses a Rube Goldberg silly machine to make a point.  All parts are essential.  For change gradually to occur, while parts are rearranged or changed, it would cease to function.  Darwin’s evolution tends to discard what does not function.
Behe writes about blood clotting.  It is called a cascading system.  This means that when bleeding occurs, this sets in motion a series of changes which stops the bleeding in the area of the bleeding only, it must also set in motion those steps which will bring a halt to the production of what causes the clotting or the organism will die.  In other words the clotting and control of clotting must be tightly regulated.
For Darwin’s theory to explain the development of this, numerous successive, slight modifications must be found. 
Russell Doolittle gives an explanation for the evolution of clotting.  He presents a series of steps where clotting proteins appear, first one then another.  The problem is that no reasons are given for the appearance of these proteins.  He does not indicate where these proteins came from. He tends to use such words as:  appear, is born, arise, spring forth.
Behe tackles the problem this way.  Animals which have blood clotting cascades have 10,000 genes.  Each gene has 3 parts.  That makes 30,000 pieces.  TPA which is a necessary part of blood clotting has 4 types which are part of the cascading system.  The odds of getting these 4 together is 30,000 to the fourth.  Behe puts this in lottery terms.  If 1,000,000 people played each year- it would take 1,000 billion years for anyone to win.  1,000 billion years is 100 times the known age of the universe.  Doolittle’s solution presents huge difficulties.
Irreducibly complex systems are the main difficulty.  As Doolittle’s system goes, as the system began to assemble, when there was nothing to do.  Proteins would be combining for no purpose, no reason.  If such a protein appeared with no function, evolution would tend to get rid of it.

Chapter 5/6
Each cell has speciality areas separated off for specific tasks: nucleus, mitochondria, endoplasm reticulum, secretory vesicles, golgi apparatus, lysosome, perorisome.  Each is kept separated by a membrane, each membrane is separated because these are made up of material not found in the other parts of the cell.
Manufactured material which the cells needs to function travels a grand distance of 1/10,000 of an inch on its journey from the cytoplasm to the lysosome, yet it requires the service of dozens of different proteins to assure its safe arrival.
This system is irreducible and the system by which it moves from one area to another is itself also irreducibly complex.
This movement from one area to another is called a gated transport system.  How does this gated system work?  Proteins contain a signal recognized by the membrane inside the cell.  A protein channel opens and the protein passes through.  This system poses a major challenge to Darwinian evolution.  Without a signal a protein would not be recognized.  If a protein did not exist to recognize the signal there would be no transport.  If the portal allowed all proteins to pass- this compartment would be no different than any other part of the cell. 
Vesicular transport is even more complex.  Behe uses this model.  His model is that of an automated car transport system.  Cars enter a truck. Truck enters a garage. Cars unload, and park.  Must have six components to do this.  There must be a tag on each car, a truck, a truck scanner, identification tag for the truck, a scanner at the garage and at the gate.  There are in this system more parts.  Gated transport and vesicular transport systems which depend upon a precise set of proteins arranged in a specific way.  Gradual development in Behe’s opinion is impossible.  The two systems are so different, so complex that there seems to be no way to make the case that one evolved from the other. Plus for the transportation system to work, the whole system must be present.
Incremental change simply can not account for these systems.
The complexity of these systems would have required chance for the system to develop.  Whence came chance?  How many times can chance be used to explain?  What are the odds that chance, time and again brought about a system so complex and irreducible?
Michael Behe now discusses antibodies.  There are 100,000 different antibodies.  The antibody molecule is made inside a cell.  For the antibody to attack an invader it must have a binding site which matches that of the invader it attacks.  The antibody is attached to a cell which made it.  These travel about. When bacteria is encountered, the antibody attacks the bacteria and brings it inside the cell.  The foreign protein is chopped up, a piece sticks to the cell’s MHC protein. This protein goes to the surface.  A T cell comes along, and binds to the B cell which made the antibody.  If the T cell fits, it releases interleukin- this ends a message to the B cell- GROW.  It begins to reproduce.  T cells keep secreting interleukin.  B cells produce spin off cells, plasma cells.  These produce antibodies which float freely about.
Darwinian steps will not meet the needs to explain this, says Behe.  There is no sequential way by a series of steps for this development to occur.
Scientists conducted the following experiment:  created molecules out of proteins, these molecules do not occur in nature, injected these into a rabbit.  The rabbit proceeded to make antibodies which attached to the molecules.  How could the cells of the rabbit make antibodies for an intruder it had never seen before?  Answer:  inherited DNA can be altered.
Antibodies do not kill the invader- these antibodies serve as signals to other systems to kill the invader. A complement system to the antibodies, via a series of very complicated steps, punctures the enemy,  causing it to take in water and explode.
Along with this the reader must realize that these cells know not to attack say red blood cells.  These two systems must be present from the beginning of the immune system.

Chapter 7
What would it take in Darwin’s theory for these proteins to join together for these complex systems?  Behe uses the ground hog crossing a road to get to its lover.  The highway has 2,000 lanes.  None reach their destination.  Illustrates problems of gradual evolution.
Proteins are strung like beads.  For example AMP has 10 carbon atoms, 11 hydrogen atoms, 7 oxygen, 4 nitrogen and 1 phosphorus.  The formation of the nucleotide AMP involves the coming together of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus atoms via a series of very complex steps which require the intervention of other molecules to make sure that the final stage is achieved. AMP occurs via 13 steps requiring 12 enzymes and energy molecules.  The energy must also be supplied at the correct times, just when the energy is needed.  So far no one has been able to explain how the steps to produce AMP cold have happened.  Actually the problem is even more complex than this.  None of the above accounts for the fact that there must be something to turn on its production and turn it off. 
The production of AMP offers stiff challenge to gradual development.  The obstacle has yet to be addressed.
Irreducibly complex systems offer severe problems for gradual development.  But even the development of a building block presents major difficulties.
Chapter 8
Nearly all 20 of the amino acids have been produced in labs.  This has been used to explain that life happened because of the presence of the material here on earth which make up amino acids.  Behe points out that this has only happened in the lab.  For amino acids to form a protein, a molecule of water must be removed from each amino.  But water was abundant on earth and aminos dissolve in water.  Other theories have been suggested- amino tossed on the edge of a volcano- this kept excess water away.  But studies have shown that this does not produce proteins.  Much can be done in the lab but only under very controlled conditions. 
Darwin’s theory explains the development of a hippo but it does not explain the origin of life.  In a way part of Behe’s argument against Darwin’s theory is that it is so heavily believed because that is simply what people have been  taught and have accepted it uncritically.  I think that an additional concern is that Darwin’s theory has been applied to areas of study of which he knew nothing.  It has been treated as the universal explanation.
Michael Behe then has a very interesting discussion of biochemical texts.  These simply do not address the issue.  The writers of the texts seem to have difficulty in admitting that problems exist in using Darwin to explain these complex systems and how they developed. He gives an example of a text which has 6,000 citations.  2 concern evolution.  In his view without proof,, without discussion, or debate, Darwin’s theory is simply accepted.  This same text revised in 1982, citations increased to 7,000 with only two concerning evolution.  A comment on the subject goes like this in the book:  Sperm whales have several tons of oil in their heads.  This oil thickens as the whale dives allowing it to swim more easily.  “Thus we see in the sperm whale a remarkable anatomical and biochemical adaptation, perfected by evolution.”  No discussion, no evidence precedes the statement, no proof after.  If this is how texts deal with the problem how do biochemists know what they know about the subject?
Chapter 9/10
Darwinism does not offer an explanation here.  Others have stepped in:  Cell parts were once free living organisms, as time passed one organism swallowed another.  Another theory: complexity theory- “systems with large number of interacting components spontaneously organized themselves into an ordered pattern.”  Another theory is Intelligent Design.  This is the purposeful arrangement of parts.  I think that Behe has come to this conclusion because too much of Darwin relies on chance.  Makes it kind of an easy argument to maintain but not very scholarly or scientific.
The more complex the system, the more likely it was designed.  Who the designer is can not be determined by the system itself.  Behe cautions- “Just because we can infer that some biochemical systems were designed, does not mean that all subcellular systems were explicitly designed.”
William Paley once asked how something complex in nature could be produced without a designer.  He views are ignored in modern times but no one has ever refuted this statement.
Behe suggests that the ordering of separate components to accomplish a function beyond that of the individual components is an argument for intelligent design.
Some have used flawed structures as an argument against intelligent design.  Behe’s reply: perhaps we have not yet figured out what use it may have.  He also suggests that it is not the role of science to make assumptions of how things ought to be.  I.D. also does not mean that life was recent- nothing to prevent it from being billions of years old.  And he adds that mutation and natural selection are compatible with I.D.
I.D. also offers a challenge to a field which has become stagnant and in need of a jolt to get people to think and discuss from divergent views.  He hopes that his ideas prompt new research.
It is interesting to me that science appears to have uncovered something which can not be explained by what we now know or think to be true.
Reluctance to grapple with Behe’s ideas he lays at the door of chauvinism- scientists feel that they alone can explain the physical world.  And he lays it at the door of history.  The war began long ago he suggests with the famous debate between Huxley and Wilberforce.  Huxley defended Darwinism and Wilberforce, religion.  Science thinks itself separate from philosophy.  Yet books published by scientists on the subject of evolution are very philosophical.  Many assertions are made in these books which are not supported by tests made in a lab.

Behe even goes so far as to ask where is it written that the supernatural must not be part of science.
Test tube testing of the existence of dinosaurs can not be done- but it is still a science. 
Behe suggests that scientists should follow the physical evidence wherever it leads, with no artificial restrictions.
Some scientists try to put science in a tidy box.  This encourages timidity.  Some scientists have an a priori view of what philosophical views they should have.  I have seen this in some scholarship I have studied concerning Classical Latin and ancient Rome. 
He cites that many accept the Big Bang theory. Yet, it postulates a very abrupt beginning.  This theory is very friendly to religion.  Hoyle for that reason rejected the Big Bang and instead suggested that the density of the universe was due to one hydrogen atom coming into existence per cubic mile of space.  He seemed to ignore that his idea suggested the creation of something from nothing.  Crick, the famous Crick, thinks that aliens brought life to earth.  He reasons that life is so complex that it seems impossible that life happened without direction. But by asserting that aliens brought life to earth, he postpones for a moment to explain where they aliens came from. 
“Intolerance does not come about when someone thinks that they have found a truth but when that someone believes that all should agree.  The following scientists serves as an example. Maddox, a scientist, said that religious believers are like wild animals in need of a cage.
The philosophical argument that science should avoid theories which smack of the supernatural is an artificial restriction on science.

My view is that of Symmachus- no one can arrive at truth by one path only.