Editing Irreducible complexity (section)

=== Intelligent design ===
The biology supplementary textbook for schools ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'' was drafted presenting [[creation science]] arguments, but shortly after the ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'' ruling, that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in public school science classes, the authors changed the wording to "intelligent design", introducing the new meaning of this term when the book was published in 1989.{{sfn | Scott | 2009 | pp=122, 149–151}}  In a separate response to the same ruling, law professor [[Phillip E. Johnson]] wrote ''[[Darwin on Trial]]'', published in 1991, and at a conference in March 1992 brought together key figures in what he later called the '[[wedge strategy|wedge movement]]', including biochemistry professor [[Michael Behe]]. According to Johnson, around 1992 Behe developed his ideas of what he later called his "irreducible complexity" concept, and first presented these ideas in June 1993 when the "Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars" met at Pajaro Dunes in California.<ref name=bfwedge>[[Barbara Forrest]], [http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Wedge.cfm#I The Wedge at Work] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140905230611/http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Wedge.cfm |date=2014-09-05 }}. Talk Reason.<br />{{cite book |author=Forrest, B |editor=Pennock, RT |chapter=1: The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism is Wedging its way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream |title=Intelligent design creationism and its critics: philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, Mass |year=2001 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/intelligentdesig00robe/page/n26 5]–54 |isbn=978-0-262-66124-9 |url=https://archive.org/details/intelligentdesig00robe |url-access=limited }}</ref>

The second edition of ''Of Pandas and People'', published in 1993, had extensive revisions to Chapter 6 ''Biochemical Similarities'' with new sections on the complex mechanism of blood clotting and on the origin of proteins, written by Behe though he was not initially acknowledged as their author. He argued that "all of the proteins had to be present simultaneously for the blood clotting system to function", so it could not have evolved. In later publications, he named the argument "irreducibly complexity", but changed his definition of this specific system.<ref>[http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/new-pandas-has-creationist-scholarship-improved The New Pandas: Has Creationist Scholarship Improved?] Comments on 1993 Revisions by Frank J. Sonleitner (1994)<br />[http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/critique-pandas-people Introduction: Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the 'Intelligent Design' movement]{{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081229222228/http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/critique-pandas-people |date=2008-12-29 }} by Nick Matzke 2004.</ref><ref name="flare-up 2006">{{cite web |author= Nick Matzke, NCSE Public Information Director|title=Design on Trial, Just another flare-up|website=National Center for Science Education|quote=Reports of the National Center for Science Education, Volume 26, No. 1-2, January-April 2006  |year= 2006 |url=https://ncse.ngo/design-trial |access-date=26 April 2025}}{{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081229192206/http://ncseweb.org/rncse/26/1-2/design-trial |date=2008-12-29 }} </ref> In ''Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design'' (2003), historian Thomas Woodward wrote that "Michael Behe assisted in the rewriting of a chapter on biochemistry in a revised edition of Pandas. The book stands as one of the milestones in the infancy of Design."<ref name="Design on Trial 2004">{{cite web | title=Design on Trial in Dover, Pennsylvania | website= National Center for Science Education | date=14 December 2004 | url=https://ncse.ngo/design-trial-dover-pennsylvania | access-date=28 July 2023}}</ref><ref name="Woodward 2003">{{cite book | last=Woodward | first=T. | title=Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design | publisher=Baker Books | year=2003 | isbn=978-0-8010-6443-2 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9dkPAQAAIAAJ | access-date=29 July 2023 | page=89}}</ref>

On [[Access Research Network]], Behe posted (on 3 February 1999) "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference" with a note that "This paper was originally presented in the Summer of 1994 at the meeting of the [[C. S. Lewis]] Society, Cambridge University." An "Irreducible Complexity" section quoted Darwin, then discussed "the humble mousetrap", and "Molecular Machines", going into detail about [[cilium|cilia]] before saying "Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects of protein transport, blood clotting, closed circular DNA, electron transport, the bacterial flagellum, telomeres, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and much more. Examples of irreducible complexity can be found on virtually every page of a biochemistry textbook." Suggesting "these things cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution," he said they had been neglected by the scientific community.{{sfn | Forrest | Gross | 2007 | pp=68–69}}<ref name="Behe Molecular Machines">{{cite web | last=Behe | first=Michael J. | title=Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference | website=[[Access Research Network]] | date=3 February 1999 | url=http://arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19990203024838/http://arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm | archive-date=3 February 1999 | url-status=unfit | access-date=28 July 2023|quote=This paper was originally presented in the Summer of 1994 at the meeting of the [[C. S. Lewis]] Society, Cambridge University.}}</ref>

Behe first published the term "irreducible complexity" in his 1996 book ''[[Darwin's Black Box]]'', where he set out his ideas about theoretical properties of some complex biochemical [[cell (biology)|cellular]] systems, now including the bacterial flagellum. He posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain the development of such "irreducibly complex" systems. Notably, Behe credits philosopher [[William Paley]] for the original concept (alone among the predecessors).

Intelligent design advocates argue that irreducibly complex systems must have been deliberately engineered by some form of [[intelligent designer|intelligence]].

In 2001, Behe wrote: "[T]here is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work." Behe specifically explained that the "current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system", but the "difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place".<ref>{{cite journal |author=Behe, MJ |title=Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution |journal=Biology and Philosophy |volume=16 |issue=5 |pages=685–709 |date=November 2001 |url=http://friends-of-wisdom.com/readings/Behe2001.pdf |doi=10.1023/A:1012268700496 |s2cid=34945871 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110711040554/http://friends-of-wisdom.com/readings/Behe2001.pdf |archive-date=2011-07-11 }}</ref> In the 2005 ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' trial, Behe testified under oath that he "did not judge [the asymmetry] serious enough to [have revised the book] yet."<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html Behe's testimony in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060629222457/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html |date=2006-06-29 }}</ref>

Behe additionally testified that the presence of irreducible complexity in organisms would not rule out the involvement of evolutionary mechanisms in the development of organic life. He further testified that he knew of no earlier "peer reviewed articles in scientific journals discussing the intelligent design of the blood clotting cascade," but that there were "probably a large number of peer reviewed articles in science journals that demonstrate that the blood clotting system is indeed a purposeful arrangement of parts of great complexity and sophistication."<ref>Behe, Michael 2005 [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 88 of 139|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science (p. 88)]]</ref> (The judge ruled that "intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature".)<ref>[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#H. Conclusion|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 6: Conclusion, section H]]</ref>

The [[scientific theory]] of [[evolution]] incorporates evidence that genetic variations occur, but makes no assumptions of [[Teleological argument|purposeful design]] or intent. The environment "selects" the variants which have the highest fitness for conditions at the time, and these heritable variations are then passed on to the next generation of organisms. Change occurs by the gradual operation of natural forces over time, perhaps slowly, perhaps more quickly (see [[punctuated equilibrium]]). This process is able to [[adaptation|adapt]] complex structures from simpler beginnings, or convert complex structures from one function to another (see [[spandrel (biology)|spandrel]]). Most intelligent design advocates accept that evolution occurs through mutation and natural selection at the "[[microevolution|micro level]]", such as changing the relative frequency of various beak lengths in finches, but assert that it cannot account for irreducible complexity, because none of the parts of an irreducible system would be functional or advantageous until the entire system is in place.