Pick one of the topics/pdf’s from below that interests you, read the competing arguments within the pdf (below).

Each reading contains a pro and a con argument. Read both. 

This is an argument analysis assignment. Discuss who made the better argument, and why. Should at least mention something about who you don’t like and why as well. This should be at least 3 paragraphs. If you need further info feel free to revisit the either or both the expectations page and the syllabus.

Argument Analysis-4 God Argument: Aquinas vs Dawkins

Argument Analysis-5 Evolution vs Creationism

Argument Analysis-6 Targeting Kids with Ads

Warnings: all of these passages are trying to persuade you, read carefully and determine who made a better argument and why, not what you already believe or prefer. Essays should be mostly in your own words, but it is helpful to briefly refer directly to what the authors say, using quotes. This will be run in Turnitin for plagiarism. 

Argument Analy sis 6: Targeting Kids with TV Ads

T here a re 2 a rg uments here, be s ure to rea d both a nd dec i de who ha s the better a rg ument.

Argument 1:

Margo Wootan against targeting kids… Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children

These “Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children” are for food manufacturers, restaurants,

supermarkets, television and radio stations, movie studios, maga zines, public relations and advertising

agencies, schools, toy and video game manufacturers, organizers of sporting or children’s events, and others

who manufacture, sell, market, advertise, or otherwise promote food to children. The Guidelines provide

criteria for marketing food to children in a manner that does not undermine children’s diets or harm their

health. We hope the Guidelines will be helpful to parents, school officials, legislators, community and health

organizations, and others who are seeking to improve children’s diets.

Over the last 20 years, the rates of obesity have doubled in children and tripled in teens. Even for children at

a healthy weight, few (only 2 percent) eat a nutritious diet as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Currently, children’s diets are too high in calories, saturated and trans fats, refined sugars, and salt and too low

in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and calcium. This increases their risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes,

osteoporosis, and other serious and costly diseases.

Although children’s food choices are affected by many factors, food marketing plays a key role. Studies show

that food marketing attracts children’s attention, influences their food choices, and prompts them to request

that their parents purchase products.

Parents bear the primary responsibility for feeding their children. However, getting children to eat a healthful

diet would be much easier for parents if they did not have to contend with billions of dollars’ worth of

sophisticated marketing for low-nutrition foods.

Parental authority is undermined by wide discrepancies between what parents tell their children is

healthful to eat and what marketing promotes as desirable to eat. In addition, while many parents have limited

proficiency in nutrition, companies have extensive expertise in persua sive techniques. Companies also have

resources to influence children’s food choices that parents do not have, such as cartoon characters,

contests, celebrities, and toy giveaways.

The Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children apply to children of all ages (less than 18 years

of age). Society provides special protections for chil dren, including measures to protect their health, such as

requiring use of car safety seats or prohibiting them from buying cigarettes or alcoholic beverages. However,

even in the absence of legislative or regulatory requirements, marketers should act responsibly and not urge

children to eat foods that could harm their health.

Nutrition Guidelines

Responsible food marketing to children must address not

only how food is marketed but also which foods are mar-

keted to kids. Uniquely, the Guidelines for Responsible

Food Mark eting to Children set criteria for which foods

are appropriate to market to children.

Ideally, companies would market to children only the

most healthful foods and beverages, especially those that

are typically underconsumed, such as fruits, vegetables,

whole grains, and low-fat dairy products.

However, nutrition criteria that would allow o nly mar-

keting of those foods seem unrealistically restrictive.

Instead, we recommend a compromise approach. These

Guidelines set criteria that allow for the marketing of prod –

ucts that may not be nutritionally ideal but that provide

some positive nutritional benefit and that could help chil-

dren meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Some marketing efforts do not promote individual

products but instead promote a line of products, one

brand within a company, or a whole company. For exam-

ple, a campaign might encourage children to go to a

particular restaurant without marketing a specific menu

item. A company logo or spokescharacter featured on a

hat or Web site might promote a whole line of products.

Companies should not conduct general b rand marketing

aimed at children for brands under which more than half

of the products are of poor nutritional quality, as defined

below. If multiple products are shown in an advertise –

ment, if one product does not meet the nutrition criteria

below, then the advertisement is considered to promote

foods of poor nutritional quality.

Beverages

Low-nutrition beverages (as defined below) should not be

marketed to children.

Nutritious/Healthful Beverages

 Water and seltzer without added sweeteners

 Beverages that contain at least 50 percent juice and

that do not contain added sweeteners

 Low-fat and fat-free milk, including flavored milks
and calcium-fortified soy and rice beverages

Low-Nutrition Beverages

 Soft drinks, sports drinks, and sweetened iced teas

 Fruit-based drinks that contain less than 50 percent

juice or that contain added sweeteners

 Drinks containing caffeine (except low-fat and fat-

free chocolate milk, which contain trivial amounts of

caffeine)

Foods

Foods marketed to children should meet all of the follow-

ing criteria (nutritionally poor choices or low-nutrition

foods are those that do not meet the criteria):

Nut r ie nt C r it e r ia

Fat
i

No more than 35% of total calories,

excluding nuts, seeds, and peanut or

ot he r nut but t e r s

Sa t ur a t ed

plus trans fat

No mor e t ha n 10% of ca lorie s

Added

sugars

Le s s t ha n 35% of a dde d s ugar s by

weight (added sugars exclude naturally

occurring sugars from fruit, vegetable,

a nd da ir y ingr edie nts)

Sodium No mor e t ha n;

I. 230 mg per serving of chips, crackers,

che e s es , ba ked goods, F r ench f rie s,

a nd ot her s nack it e ms

2. 480 mg per serving for cereals, soups,
pastas, and meats

3. 600 mg f or piz z a , s a ndwiches , a nd
ma in dis he s

4. 770 mg f or me a ls
Nutrient

content
C ont a ins one or mor e of t he f ollowing:

10% of t he DR I (die t a r y r e f e r e nce

int a ke ) of (na t ur a lly occur r ing/wit h out

f or t ificat ion) v itamins A , C , or E;

ca lcium; ma gne s ium; potas sium; ir on; or

f ibe r

2. Ha lf a s e r v ing of f r uit or v e ge t a ble

3. 51% or more (by weight) whole-

gr a in ingr edients

Portion Size Limits for Foods and Beverages

Individual No larger than the standard serving size

items used for nutrition facts labels (except for

fruits and vegetables, which are exempt

f r o m p o r t i o n s i z e l i m i t s )

Meals No more than one-third of the daily

calorie requirement for the average

child in the age range targeted by the

marketing

“For C A RU’s guidelines, go to httpliwww,curui.orgiguidelinesi guidelincs .

*Margo G. Woot an, “Guidelines for Responsible Food Market ing t o Children,” January 6, 2006. Cent er for Science in t he P ublic Int erest (CSP I).

” January 21395; second printing, January 2006. The full Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children are av ailable online (free of charge) at

ht t p://www:espinet .orgimarket ingguidelines

Marketing Techniques

When marketing foods to children, companies should:

Product Characteristics and Overall Messages

 Support parents’ efforts to serve as the gatekeepers of sound nutrition for their children and not undermine
parental authority. Marketers should not encourage children to nag their parents to buy low-nutrition
foods.

 Depict and package/serve food in reasonable portion sizes and not encourage overeating directly or
indirectly.

 D e ve l op ne w produc ts tha t hel p c hi ldren ea t healthfully, especially with regard to nutrient density,

energy density, and portion size.

 Reformulate products to improve their nutritional quality, including adding more fruits, vegetables, and

whole grains, and reducing portion sizes, calories, sodium, refined sugars, and saturated and trans fats.

 Expand efforts to promote healthy eating habits consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and

to promote healthful products, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat milk. Do not portray

healthful foods negatively.

Specific Marketing Techniques and Incentives

 Should not advertise nutritionally poor choices during television shows (1) with more than 15 percent of

the audience under age 12; (2) for which children are identified as the target audience by the television

station, entertainment company, or movie studio; or (3) that are kid-oriented cartoons.

 Not us e produc t or brand pl ac e m ents.

 Only offer premiums and incentives with foods, meals, and brands that meet the nutrition criteria

described above.

 Use/allow licensing agreements or cross-promotions (such as with movies, television programs, or video

games) or use cartoon/fictional characters or celebrities from television, movies, music, or sports to market

to children only those foods that meet the above nutrition criteria. This includes depictions on food pack-

ages, in ads, as premiums, and for in-store promotions.

 Not put logos, brand names, spokescharacters, product names, or other marketing for low-nutrition

foods/brands on baby bottles, children’s apparel, books, toys, dishware, or other merchandise made

specifically for children.

 Incorporate into games (such as board, Internet, or video games), toys, or books only those products and

brands that meet the nutrition criteria.

 Use sponsorship of sporting, school, and other events for children only with brands and foods that meet the

above nutrition criteria.

 Not exploit children’s natural tendency to play by building entertainment value into low-nutrition foods.

Additional Guidance for Schools

 Schools are a unique setting. Companies should support healthy eating in schools and not market, sell,

or give away low-nutrition foods or brands anywhere on school campuses, including through logos, brand

names, spokescharacters, product names, or other product marketing on/in vending machines; books,

curricula, and other educational materials; school supplies; posters; textbook covers; and school property

such as scoreboards, signs, athletic fields, buses, and buildings; educational incentive programs that provide

food as a reward (for example, earning a coupon for a free pizza after reading a certain number of books);

incentive programs that provide schools with money or school supplies when families buy a company’s

food products; in-school television, such as Channel One; direct sale of low-nutrition foods; and school

fundraising activities.

 Should not mislead children regarding the emotional, social, or health benefits of a product or exploit

children’s developmental vulnerabilities and emotions to market any food.

Argument 2:

Robert Liodice defending targeting kids

”Robert Liodice, “Advertising and Freedom of Speech; Beware of the Food Nanny,” January 24, 2005,

littp://anablogs.comiliodice12005/01/ america-free_sp.htinl.

Free speech is the most important and fundamental right we have as Americans. It is the foundation

for the free exchange of ideas and ideals that drives the lifestyles and livelihoods in this most free of

countries. Free speech is the basis of choice and personal responsibility. Without the free exchange of

information, we limit the ability of Americans to be fully informed to make the choices that are inherently

theirs to make. When those freedoms are jeopardized, we all lose. When you begin to chip away, even

marginally, at those freedoms, we all run the risk of sliding down that slippery slope of diminishing rights

and privileges. That is why I felt most compelled to address the recent release of the “Guidelines for

Responsible Food Marketing to Children” (PDF) by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

I am rather stunned that CSPI—or any organization for that matter—would suggest restricting or

modifying the free speech of perfectly legal enterprises as an approach to solve a problem. We all

recognize that there are a host of societal issues—childhood and adult obesity stands out as one of the

most “curable” of them all. But seeking a cure should not follow the path of trampling on our core rights

and privileges of Americans. Without question or argument, there are a range of reasonable alternatives

and approaches that can be considered and aggressively pursued—and they should [be pursued] with full

vigor. But trampling on the First Amendment, whether through government controls or unsupported self-

regulatory edicts, should not even be on anyone’s radar screen—as a way to solve problems. Accordingly, I

have addressed CSPI’s “guidelines” in today’s Ad Age editorial.

Last week the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) did something that was neither based on

science nor beneficial to the public interest. They released a set of ill-conceived, heavy-handed food

marketing guidelines. [On the basis of] flawed data and backed by the threat of lawsuits, they intend to

coerce the food and marketing industries to conform to their misguided views of what constitutes good

nutrition and what represents appropriate commercial communication with consumers.

In issuing these guidelines, CSPI misstates the facts about food advertising and childhood TV viewing;

they overlook the broad array of factors—beyond marketing—that influence childhood food

consumption; they disregard the significant efforts of food companies to enhance the nutritional

content of their products; and they ignore the fact that food and other advertising are already among

the most stringently regulated areas in the United States.

Styling themselves as the nation’s food nanny, CSPI has proposed a set of extraordinarily overreaching

regulations, which specify acceptable nutritional content, portion size, packaging design and logo use.

They further seek to control communications in TV shows, video games, web sites, and books. And the y

attempt to dictate use of premiums, incentives, licensing arrangements, cross -promotions,

sponsorships and even the aisles within supermarkets where food products are displayed!

The guideline specifics are ridiculously restrictive. For example, children are defined as “anyone under 18;”

low-nutrition beverages are defined as “drinks with less than 50 percent real juice;” and banned TV shows

are those “for which more than a quarter of the audience is children.” They are an affront to and

broadside attack on—the marketing freedoms of food and restaurant businesses, broadcasters,

entertainment companies, and the entire marketing industry,

We won’t be intimidated! Nor will American consumers who—unlike CSPI—recognize the importance

of personal and parental responsibility, public education, dietary balance and moderation and, of course,

physical activity in addressing the issues of childhood nutrition and obesity.

So let me specifically address the major flaws inherent in CSPI’s guidelines.

First, CSPI speciously claims that the amount of marketing aimed at kids has doubled in the last ten

years. In examining measured media, however, a detailed study by Nielsen Media Research covering

the period of 1993 to 2003 concludes otherwise. Adjusting for inflation in order to hold the value of

dollars constant, real expenditures on food and restaurant advertising on television (including cable)

fell over this ten-year period. Furthermore, the actual number of food ads seen by children under 12

declined by 13 percent from the first four years of this period to the last four years. Rather than

being increasingly bombarded by restaurant and food advertising, as CSPI would have people believe,

kids 12 and under are actually seeing fewer food and restaurant ads today.

Second, CSPI’s report states that “parents bear the primary responsibility for feeding their

children.” However, the guidelines then ignore this point and the fact that adults make the vast

majority of food purchases for their families, particularly for younger kids. They also disregard what the

majority of food experts inherently know: that the best way to encourage good childhood nutrition is

to promote healthy, well-balanced diets, rather than attempting to characterize some products as

“good foods” and others as “bad foods.” When other countries have attempted to ban or severely

restrict children’s advertising, those efforts have consistently failed to lower obesity rates in compari –

son to countries where there are no such restrictions.

Finally, let’s take a look at the significant, positive steps the food and marketing industries are

taking—and have historically taken—to address the special concerns of children. Thirty years ago,

the marketing industry established the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) specifically to

recognize that material which might be truthful and non-deceptive for adults could still mislead

young people. CARU created a detailed code, available at www.caru.orgiguidelines, which proactively

works to [ensure] that children are not taken advantage of in the advertising marketplace. CARU

diligently carries out its own monitoring and receives complaints from regulators, consumer advocates,

Attorneys General, competitors, and the public at large, The record of industry compliance with

CARU’s guidelines demonstrates an extremely high level of effectiveness.

Equally important are the many, significant steps that food and restaurant companies are taking to

bring healthy new offerings to market. For example, they are reformulating products to be lower in

cholesterol, fat, and calories.

They are removing trans fats, reducing sodium and sugar content, introducing whole grains, and

offering more milk products and salad menu items.

T here i s no ques ti on tha t c hi l dhood nutri ti on a nd obe sity are serious societal issues. However,

as the Surgeon Genera l c onc l uded i n hi s g roundbrea ki ng 2001 report, “There is no simple or

quick answer to this multifaceted c ha l l eng e.” Unl i ke C SPI’ s g ui del i nes whi c h mi s l ea d the

publ i c by na rrowl y f oc us i ng on f ood a dverti s i ng , the Surg eon Genera l ‘ s report c onta i ns

thoug htf ul , s pec i f i c rec ommenda ti ons on how to a ddres s the c ha l l eng e i n a ba l a nc ed,

c omprehens i ve wa y. It f urther c a l ls on a l l of us —c ompa ni es , i ndi vi dua l s , f a mi l i es , s c hool s ,

g overnments a nd the medi a —to work tog ether i n wa ys tha t wi l l bring better health to

everyone in this country. We accept thi s c ha l l eng e a nd s ta nd rea dy to c ol l a bora te wi th a l l

other i nteres ted, res pons i bl e pa rti es to i denti f y s ol uti ons tha t wi l l trul y work.

ArgumentAnalysis 5: Evolution versus Creation

T here a re 2 a rg uments here, be s ure to rea d both a nd dec i de who ha s the better a rg ument.

A r g u men t 1:

Mi c ha el B ehe a g a i ns t evol uti on

In his seminal work On the Origin of Species, Darwin hoped to explain what no one had been able to
explain before—how the variety and complexity of the living world might have been produced by simple

natural laws. His idea for doing so was, of course, the theory of evolution by natural selection…

It was an elegant idea, and many scientists of the time quickly saw that it could explain many things about

biology. However, there remained an important reason for reserving judgment about whether it could actually
account for all of biology: the basis of life was as yet unknown. In Darwin’s day, atoms and molecules were
still theoretical constructs—no one was sure if such things actually existed. Thus the intricate molecular basis
of Iife was utterly unknown to Darwin and his contemporaries. In the past hundred years, science has learned
much more about the cell and, especially in the past fifty years, much about the molecular basis of life.

In light of the enormous progress made by science since Darwin first proposed his theory, it is reasonable to
ask if the theory still seems to be a good explanation for life. In Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge

to Evolution (Behe 1996), I argued that it is not. The main difficulty for Darwinian mechanisms is that many
systems in the cell are what I termed “irreducibly complex.” I defined an irreducibly complex system as: a

single system that is necessarily composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the
basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease

functioning (Behe 2001). As an example from everyday life of an irreducibly complex system, I pointed to a
mechanical mousetrap such as one finds in a hardware store. Typically, such traps have a number of parts: a
spring, a wooden platform, a hammer, and other pieces. If one removes a piece from the trap, it can’t catch
mice.

Irreducibly complex systems seem very difficult to fit into a Darwinian framework, for a reason insis ted

upon by Darwin himself. In the Origin, Darwin wrote that “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. But I can find out no such case” (Darwin 1859, 158). Here Darwin was emphasizing
that his was a gradual theory. Natural selection had to improve systems by tiny steps, over a long period of time.

However, it is hard to see how something like a mousetrap could arise gradually by something akin to a
Darwinian process. For example, a spring by itself, or a platform by itself, would not catch mice, and adding a

piece to the first nonfunctioning piece wouldn’t make a trap either. So it appears that irreducibly complex
biological systems would present a considerable obstacle to Darwinian evolution.

The question then becomes, are there any irreducibly complex systems in the cell? Are there any irreducibly

complex molecular machines? Yes, there are many. In Darwin’s Black Box, I discussed several biochemical systems as
examples of irreducible complexity: the eukaryotic cilium, the intracellular transport system, and more. Here I will

just briefly describe the bacterial flagellum. . . . The flagellum can be thought of as an outboard motor that
bacteria use to swim. It was the first truly rotary structure discovered in nature. It consists of a long

filamentous tail that acts as a propeller; when it is spun, it pushes against the liquid medium and can propel
the bacterium forward. The propeller is attached to the drive shaft indirectly through something called the
hook region, which acts as a universal joint. The drive shaft is attached to the motor, which uses a flow of acid
or sodium ions from the outside to the inside of the cell to power rotation. Just as an outboard motor has to be
kept stationary on a motorboat while the propeller turns, there are proteins that act as a stator struc ture to

keep the flagellum in place. Other proteins act as bushings to permit the drive shaft to pass through the bac terial
membrane. Studies have shown that thirty to forty proteins are required to produce a functioning flagellum

in the cell. In the absence of almost any of the proteins—in the absence of the parts that act as the propeller,
drive shaft, hook, and so forth—no functioning flagellum is built.

As with the mousetrap, it is quite difficult to see how Darwin’s gradualistic process of natural selection sift-

ing random mutations could produce the bacterial flagel lum, since many pieces are required before its
function a ppea rs …. T he probl em of a c c ounti ng f or the ori g in of the flagellum is not limited to the flagellum

itself but extends to associated control systems as well.

Second, a more subtle problem is how the parts assemble themselves into a whole. The analogy to an
outboard motor fails in one respect: an outboard motor is generally assembled under the direction of a human—

an intelligent agent who can specify which parts are attached to which other parts. The information for
assembling a bacterial flagellum, however (or, indeed, for assembling any biomolecular machine), resides in
the component proteins of the structure itself. Thus, even if we had a hypothetical cell in which proteins

homologous to all of the parts of the flagellum were present (perhaps performing jobs other than propulsion)
but were missing the information on how to assemble themselves into a flagellum, we would still not get the

structure. The problem of irreducibility would remain.

Because of such considerations, I have concluded that Darwinian processes are not promising explanations

for many biochemical systems in the cell. Instead, I have noted that, if one looks at the interactions of the
components of the flagellum, or cilium, or other irreducibly complex cellular system, they look like they were

designed—purposely designed by an intelligent agent.

Rather than showing how their theory could handle the obstacle, some Darwinists are hoping to get around
irreducible complexity by verbal tap dancing. Kenneth Miller actually claimed … that a mousetrap isn’t
irreducibly complex because subsets of a mousetrap, and even each individual part, could still “function” on
their own. The holding bar of a mousetrap, Miller observed, could be used as a toothpick, so it still has a
“function” outside the mousetrap. Any of the parts of the trap could be used as a paperweight, he continued, so

they all have “functions.” And since any object that has mass can be a paperweight, then any part of anything
has a function of its own. Presto, there is no such thing as irreducible complexity!

Of course, the facile explanation rests on a transparent fallacy, a brazen equivocation. Miller uses the word
“function” in two different senses. Recall that the defini tion of irreducible complexity notes that removal of a

part “causes the system to effectively cease functioning?’ Without saying so, in his exposition Miller shifts the
focus from the separate function of the intact system itself to the question of whether we can find a different
use (or “function”) for some of the parts. However, if one removes a part from the mousetrap I have pictured, it
can no longer catch mice. The system has indeed effectively ceased functioning, so the system is irreducibly
complex.

With the problem of the mousetrap behind him, Miller then moved on to the bacterial flagellum—and

again resorted to the same fallacy. In recent years, it has been shown that the bacterial flagellum is an even
more sophisticated system than had been thought. Not only does it act as a rotary propulsion device, it also
contains within itself an elegant mechanism used to transport the proteins that make up the outer portion of
the machine from the inside of the cell to the outside (Aizawa 1996). Without blinking, Miller asserted that
the flagellum is not irreducibly complex because some proteins of the flagellum could be missing and the

remainder could still transport proteins, perhaps independently. (Proteins similar—but not identical—to some

found in the flagellum occur in the type III secretory system of some bacteria.) Again, he was equivocating,
switching the focus from the function of the sys tem, acting as a rotary propulsion machine, to the ability of a
subset of the system to transport proteins across a membrane. However, taking away the parts of the flagellum
certainly destroys the ability of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine, as I have argued. Thus, contra
Miller, the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex. What’s more, the function of transporting proteins has as

little directly to do with the function of rotary propulsion as a toothpick has to do with a mousetrap.

Future Prospects of the Intelligent Design Hypothesis

The misconceived arguments by Darwinists that I have recounted here offer strong encouragement to me that

the hypothesis of Intelligent Design is on the right track. After all, if well-informed opponents of an idea attack
it by citing data that, when considered objectively, actually demonstrate its force, then one is entitled to be

confident that the idea is worth investigating.

The important point here for a theory of Intelligent Design is that molecular machines are not confined

to the few examples that I discussed in Darwin’s Black Box. Rather, most proteins are found as components of
complicated molecular machines. Thus design might extend to a large fraction of the features of the cell, and
perhaps beyond that into higher levels of biology.

Progress in twentieth-century science has led us to the design hypothesis. I expect progress in the twenty-
first century to confirm and extend it.

References

Behe, M. J. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. The Biochemical challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Pres s .

–. 2001. Repl y to my cri ti cs : A res pons e to revi ews of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.. Biology and
Philosophy 16: 685-709.

Darwi n, C. 1859. The Origin of Species. New York: Bantam Books .

Argument 2:
Kenneth Miller criticizing Behe and defending evolution.

One of the things that make science such an exhilarating activity is its revolutionary character. As science
advances, there is always the possibility that some investigator, working in the field or at a laboratory bench,

will produce a discovery or experimental result that will completely transform our understanding of nature…

In 1996, Michael Behe took a bold step in this scientific tradition by challenging one of the most useful,

productive, and fundamental concepts in all of biology—Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Behe’s provocative
claim, carefully laid out in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, was that whatever else Darwinian evolution can
explain successfully, it cannot account for the biochemical complexity of the living cell.

Behe’s argument is crafted around the existence of complex molecular machines found in all living cells.
Such machines, he argues, could not have been produced by evolution, and therefore must be the products of
intelligent design. What I propose to do in this brief review is to put this line of reasoning to the test. I will

examine both the scientific evidence for this claim and the logical structure of the biochemical argument from
design, and will pose the most fundamental question one can ask of any scientific hypothesis—does it fit the

facts?

An Exceptional Claim

For nearly more than a century and a half, one of the clas sic ways to argue against evolution has been to
point to an exceptionally complex and intricate structure and then to challenge an evolutionist to “evolve
this!” examples of such challenges have included everything from the optical marvels of the human eye to the
chemical defenses of the bombardier beetle. At first glance, Behe’s examples seem to fit this tradition… As he
realizes, however, the mere existence of structures and pathways that have not yet been given step-by-step

Darwinian explanation does not make much of a case against evolution.

Given that the business of science is to provide and test explanations, the fact that there are a few things that
have, as yet, no published evolutionary explanations is not much of an argument against Darwin. Rather, it
means that the field is still active, vital, and filled with scientific chal lenges. Behe realizes this, and therefore his
principal claim for design is quite different. He observes, quite correctly, that science has not explained the
evolution of the bacterial flagellum, but then he goes one step further. No such explanation is even possible,

according to Behe. Why? Because the flagellum has a characteristic that Behe calls “irreducible complexity.”

Irreducible complexity is the key to Behe’s argument against Darwin, Why? Because it opens a chain of

reasoning that allows the critic of evolution to reach the conclusion of design. It alone allows one to state that
the notion of an evolutionary origin for any complex biochemical structure can be ruled out in principle. To
make his point perfectly clear, Behe uses a common mechani cal device, the mousetrap, as an example of

irreducible complexity.

Since every part of the mousetrap must be in place before it is functional, this means that partial

mousetraps, ones that are missing one or two parts, are useless —you cannot catch mice with them. Extending
the analogy to irreducibly complex biochemical machines, they also are without function until all of their parts

are assembled. What this means, of course, is that natural selection could not produce such machines

gradually, one part at a time. They would be non-functional until all of their parts were assembled, and natural
selection, which can only select functioning systems, would have nothing to work with, . .

In Behe’s view, this observation, in and of itself makes the case for design. If the biochemical machinery of
the cell cannot be produced by natural selection, then there is only one reasonable alternative—design by an
intelligent a g ent.

If Behe’s arguments have a familiar ring to them, they should. They mirror the classic “Argument from Design,”
articulated so well by William Paley nearly 200 years ago in his book Natural Theology. Darwin was well aware
of the argument, so much so that he devoted special care to answering it when he wrote On the Origin of the
Species. Darwin’s answer, in essence, was that evolution produces complex organs in a series of fully functional
intermediate stages. if each of the intermediate stages can be favored by natural selection, then so can the
whole pathway.

Getting to the Heart of the Matter

To fully explore the scientific basis of the biochemical argument from design, we should investigate the

details of some of the very structures used in Behe’s book as examples of irreducibly complex systems. One
of these is the eukaryotic cilium, an intricate whip-like structure that produces movement in cells as diverse as

green algae and human sperm.

Remember Behe’s statement that the removal of any one of the parts of an irreducibly complex system

effectively causes the system to stop working? The cili um provides us with a perfect opportunity to test that
assertion. If it is correct, then we should be unable to find examples of functional cilia anywhere in nature that
lack the cilium’s basic parts. Unfortunately for the argument, that is not the case. Nature presents many
examples of fully functional cilia that are missing key parts. One of the most compel ling is the eeI sperm
flagellum, which lacks at least three important parts normally found in the cilium: the central doublet, central
spokes, and the dynein outer arm (Wooley 1997).

The key element of Behe’s claim was that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a
part is by definition nonfunctional.” But the individual parts of the cilium, including tubulin, the motor protein
dynein, and the contractile protein actin, are fully functional elsewhere in the cell. What this means, of course, is
that a selectable function exists for each of the major parts of the and therefore that the argument is wrong.

Disproving Design

If the biochemical argument from design is a scientific hypothesis, as its proponents claim, then it should make

specific predictions that are testable in scientific terms. The most important prediction of the hypothesis of
irreducible complexity . . . is that components of irreducibly complex structures should not have functions that can

be favored by natural selection.

As we have seen, these facts demonstrate that the one system most widely cited as the premier example of

irreducible complexity contains individual parts that have selectable functions. What this means, in scientific
terms, is that the hypothesis of irreducible complexity is falsified.

Caught in the Mousetrap

Why does the biochemical argument from design collapse so quickly upon close inspection? I would suggest
that this is because the logic of the argument itself is flawed. Consider, for example, the mechanical mousetrap
as an analogy of irreducibly complex systems. Behe has written that a mousetrap does not work if even one of

its five parts is removed. However, with a little ingenuity, it turns out to be remarkably easy to construct a working
mousetrap after removing one of its parts, leaving just four.

Are subsets of the five-part trap useful (selectable) in different contexts? Considering the following
examples: for my personal use I sometimes wear a tie clip consisting of just three parts (platform, spring, and
hammer) and use a key chain consisting of just two (platform and hammer). It is possible, in fact, to imagine a
host of uses for parts of the “irreducibly complex” mousetrap.

The meaning of this should be clear. If portions of a supposedly irreducibly complex mechanical structure
are fully functional in different contexts, then the central claim built upon this concept is incorrect. Natural

selection could indeed produce elements of a biochemical machine for different purposes. The mousetrap
example provides, unintentionally, a perfect analogy for the way in which natural selection builds complex

structures.

Breaking the Chain

Critics of evolution are fond of claiming they have “dis covered” evidence of intelligent design in biochemical
systems, suggesting that they have found positive evidence of the work of the designer.

What, exactly, is the source of this “loud, piercing cry”? It turns out not to be any direct evidence, but rather

a chain of reasoning—beginning with the observation of “irreducible complexity” and leading, step by step, to a
conclusion of design (see below)—that is well removed from experimental evidence.

What Is the “Evidence” for Design?

What follows is the logical chain of reasoning leading from the observation of biochemical complexity to the

conclusion of intelligent design.

1. Observation: the cell contains biochemical machines in which the loss of a single component may abolish
function. Definition: such machines are therefore said to be “irreducibly complex.”

2. Assertion: any irreducibly complex structure that is missing a part is by definition non-functional, leaving
natural selection with nothing to select for.

3. Conclusion: therefore, irreducibly complex structures could not have been produced by natural selection.

4. Secondary conclusion: therefore, such structures must have been produced by another mechanism. Since
the only credible alternate mechanism is intelligent design, the very existence of such structures must
be evidence of intelligent design.

When the reasoning behind the biochemical argument from design is laid out in this way, it becomes easy
to spot the logical flaw in the argument. The first statement is true—the cell does indeed contain any number

of complex molecular machines in which the los s of a single part may affect function. However, the second
statement, the assertion of non-functionality, is demonstrably false. As we have seen, the individual parts of

many such machines do indeed have well-defined functions within the cell. Once this is realized, the logic of
the argument collapses. If the assertion in the second statement is shown to be false, the chain of reasoning
is broken and both conclusions are falsified.

The cell does not contain biochemical evidence of design.

Re fe rences

Be he, M. (1996a) Darwin’s Black Box, New York: The Free Press.

Huyne n, MA., Dandekar, T., and Bork, P. (1999) “Variation a nd evolution of the citric acid cycle: A genomic perspective,” Trends in Microbiology 7:281-91,

Me l e ndez-llevia, E., Wa ddell, TG., a nd Ca scante, M. (1996) “The puzzle of the Kre bs citric acid cycl e: Assembling the pieces of che mically

fe a sible re actions, a nd opportunism i n the design of metabolic pathways during evolution,” Journal of Molecular Evolution 431293-303.

Mus ser, S.M. and Chan, S.I. (1998) “Evolution of the cytochrome e oxidase proton pump,” Journal of Molecular Evolution 46:508-20.

Wooley, D.M. (1997) “Studies on the eel sperm flagellum,” Journal of Cell Science 110:85-94.

Argument Analysis 4: Aquinas versus Dawkins

Ther e are 2 arg uments here, be sur e to r ead both and deci de w ho has the better arg ument.

Argument 1:
Thomas Aquinas summarizing the 5 ‘strongest’ arguments for God

The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that
in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing
can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves
inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to
actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.
Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actu ally hot, and thereby
moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in
the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot;
but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way
a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must
be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must
needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then
there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only
inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the
hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone
understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of
efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the
efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not
possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the
intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be
several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first
cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it
is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any
intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause,
to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are
possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are
possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at
some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been
nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which
does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in
existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would
be in existence—which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something
the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or
not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as
has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some

being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their
necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and
some less good, true, noble and the like. But ‘more’ and ‘less’ are predicated of different things, according as
they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter
according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest,
something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things
that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is
the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there
must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection;
and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world, We see that things which lack intelligence, such as
natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as
to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now
whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with
knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists
by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Argument 2:

Richard Dawkins criticizing Aquinas’ argument

Thomas Aquinas”Pr oofs’
The five ‘proofs’ asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century don’t prove anything, and are
easily—though l hesitate to say so, given his eminence—exposed as vacuous. The first three are just different
ways of saying the same thing, and they can be considered together. All involve an infinite regress—the answer
to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum.
I . The Unmoved Mover Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only

escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.
2. The Uncaused Case. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed

back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.
3. The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since

physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and
that something we call God.

All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the
entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious
luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we
need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally
ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human
attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving his sins and reading innermost thoughts. If God is omniscient, he
must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But
that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent…

To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to
conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity’, or some other physical conc ept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at
best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading. It is by no means clear that God provides a natural
terminator to the regresses of Aquinas. That’s putting it mildly, as we shall see later. Let’s move on down
Aquinas’ list.

4. The Argument from Degree. We notice that things in the world differ; There are degrees of, say, goodness
or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good
and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to
set he standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God.

That’s an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only
by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelli ness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently
peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an
equivalently fatuous conclusion.
5. The Teleological Argument, or Argument from Design. Things in the world, especially living things, look as

though they have been designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Therefore
there must have been a designer, and we call him God.

The argument from desig n is the only one still in regular use today, and it still sounds to many like the
ultimate knockdown argument . . . There has probably never been a mor e devastating r out of popular
beli ef by cl ever r ea soni ng than C harles Darwin’s destructi on of the ar gument fr om d esi g n. It w as so
unexpected. T hanks to Dar wi n, i t is no l ong er true to say that nothing that w e know looks desig ned
unl ess it is designed. Evol ution by natur al selecti on pr oduces an excel lent si mulacr um of desig n,
mounting pr odigious heights of compl exi ty and el egance.