In: Biology
Intelligent design theory is an argument used by some people to challenge the teaching of evolution in public schools. One of the supporters of this idea claims that certain biological structures, such as the bacterial flagellum, require so many complex parts working together in perfect synchronization that it is not possible that they could have evolved from simpler structures. This argument states that a simpler structure could not perform the same function, which is evidence of “irreducible complexity.” This is cited as evidence for an intelligent designer. Do you consider this theory scientific? Why or why not? Would you support the inclusion of this theory in the science classroom? If so, would you also support contrasting this theory to the theory of evolution?
The bacterial flagella is an example for intelligent design concept and it was supported by behe and mayer and opposed by miller. Behe strongly believe that someone designed the flagella in the form of machine or motor but it may not be the god. He proposed the irreducible complexity for bacterial flagella. The bacterial flagellum made up of 30-40 protein subunits involved in the rotation flagellum and movement of bactera. When you remove any one of the subunit from complex it can not work. This concept opposes darwins evolution. The irreducible complexity is a kind of valid example for intelligent design and experimentally similar to watch maker analogy.
Yes it is hypothesis or theory and it has some models to propose and prove the theory or hypothesis and I can recommend in the class room.
Yes it is not following Darwinian evolution and behe opposed the ramdon mutation and suggested the non ramdom selection in mutation.
In 2004, Behe published a paper with David Snoke, in the scientific journal Protein Science states that rate of evolution of proteins by point mutation supports irreducible complexity, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed.