"While there is much that we do not know about the biochemistry of living systems, it would appear to be premature to claim that there is a principled objection to the claim that the biochemical level of the biological hierarchy is itself a product of evolutionary processes. Behe claims that biochemical
systems and processes manifest a species of complexity -- irreducible complexity -- that could not have evolved and must have been intelligently designed. We have shown, first, that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes. Second, we have argued further that evolved biochemical and molecular systems exhibit redundant complexity -- this kind of complexity simultaneously accounts for the stability of evolved biochemical systems and processes in the face of even quite radical perturbations, for biochemical and metabolic plasticity, and, mainly as a result of gene duplication, for extant structures and
processes to get co-opted in the course of evolutionary time, to serve novel functional ends."
From: Redundant Complexity: A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry. Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin. Published in PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 66 (June 1999), pp. 268-298).
http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/niall/complexi.htm
Keith Robinson had already provided us with a glimpse of the problems with Behe's IC argument:
"So, duplication plus a loss of function, plus one of two different loss-of-function mutations can convert a single step pathway into a two step cascade. The initial steps are neutral, neither advantageous nor disadvantageous. Such neutral mutations occur regularly. The final step locks in the cascade. It is potentially advantageous, because multiple levels of cascade give opportunities for both control (probably a long-term advantage) and for amplification. (One X* can activate many Y's, increasing an initial signal.)"
Darwin's Black Box Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? Keith Robison.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
What's left to argue?
"Of course, for some types of engineering problems, human engineers are not afraid to build in redundancy and back-up systems. Perhaps, Behe might want to argue, these sophisticated artifacts, with their redundant back-up systems, constitute a more sophisticated design metaphor by means of which to conceptualize nature. The trouble here is that naturalistic, evolutionary processes, notoriously, give rise to similar redundancies. And evolutionary processes do so without appeals to engineers of unknown identity and methods, be they cosmic, or merely alien, thereby commanding our attention on the basis of the scientific virtue of simplicity."
From: Redundant Complexity: A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry. Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin. Published in PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 66 (June 1999), pp. 268-298).
http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/niall/complexi.htm
So a mechanism to distinguish "designed" objects from objects formed through natural processes is still lacking. Dembski tried to formulate a 'design' filter but failed to exclude natural processes from this filter and is therefor faced with the same issue: How do we detect 'true' design?
So what does this mean for the "Wedge"?
"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds."
Phillip Johnson's critique was more rethorical than scientific.
"Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the
stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Now that Behe's contribution to the "Wedge" has failed as well in generating a scientific alternative to 'materialistic' scientific theories, what will this mean for the future of the "Wedge"?
"William Dembski and Paul Nelson, two CRSC Fellows, will very soon have books published by major secular university publishers, Cambridge University Press and The University of Chicago Press, respectively. (One critiques Darwinian materialism; the other offers a powerful altenative.)"
...
"Dembski's book, The Design Inference, was back-ordered in June, two months prior to its release date."
Yet also Dembski failed to do what the "Wedge" hoped would be achieved "a scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories".
So what's left to support the ID/IC ideology? I see this as another good example where allowing religious beliefs to dictate science will always backfire. It has been tried before and failed. Why was it believed that this time it would be different?
Any predictions on where IC/ID will go now?