The Very Thin Line Between Good and Evil.
by MikeGeneThe existence of evil is a popular argument against design. Take the Type III secretory system (TTSS), which is embedded as a subsystem within the bacterial flagellum. Since the TTSS is associated with some nasty infectious diseases, some might scoff that the design of the TTSS means the designer is a malevolent being. Perhaps. But as I have argued before, the TTSS is best viewed not a pathogenic device, but as a device that elicits symbiosis. In fact, the distinction between mutualism and parasitism (with or without the TTSS) can be more fuzzy than many appreciate.
A recent study drives this basic point home clearly. There is a filamentous fungus that exists in a beneficial symbiotic relationship with a grass. What does a take to turn this nice relationship into a pathogenic relationship? A mutation in one gene.
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:30 am
The existence of evil argument is a curious one indeed for materialists. As, if we are simply creatures of chance how is it we can comprehend evil against good, afterall what is evil what is good, if we live in a meaningless universe, and why be troubled by it?
For the consistent materialist there really is no such thing as evil and good (in any objective sense) just random forces. So when one points to the evils of TTSS (whether rightly or wrongly) they do not dissprove God but are simply admitting that they too believe these categories actually exist. And if good and evil exist suddenly we are confronted with a reality that is more than merely atoms in motion.
I remembering hearing that during his athiest days C.S Lewis says that while he didn't believe in God he was angry with him at the same time. I suspect that the argument against God due to the existence of evil is driven by a similar rage.
Comment by willo — March 23, 2006 @ 1:30 am
March 23rd, 2006 at 11:54 am
Fascinating stuff, Mike. My theological views allow for evil intelligent design (I believe there are sinister supernatural beings as well as good ones), but if I don't have to invoke them to account for structures such as the TTSS, that's okay with me, too.
I'm curious, does the filamentous fungus involve a TTSS, or some other mechanism?
Comment by Bilbo — March 23, 2006 @ 11:54 am
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Hi Bilbo,
No, the fungi do not use the TTSS, as that system is specific to bacteria.
Comment by MikeGene — March 23, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
March 24th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
In that case, the question is how relevant a comparison is there between the filamentous fungus and the TTSS? One mutation to the fungus turns it into a pathological parasite. Is there a way to show that the TTSS was originally designed only for good, and a mutation or two occurred that allowed it be used for bad? Or was it always a morally neutral system, that could be used for good or bad?
Comment by Bilbo — March 24, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
March 24th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Hi Bilbo,
A thing to keep in mind would be that the TTSS is most likely descended from the bacterial flagellum, in which it functions as the pump used to construct the whip. Its current function is not what it originally did.
Comment by Krauze — March 24, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
March 24th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Bilbo,
I'm not trying to argue that the fungi show us the TTSS was once good and now has become bad. The TTSS is already known to do both good and bad things (most of the focus is on the bad because must of the funding goes toward curing diseases). The fungi just help us further appreciate the "thin line between good and evil."
Comment by MikeGene — March 24, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
March 25th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Okay, so we should probably see the TTSS as a neutral system, capable of being used for good or evil. Now I'm wondering if you agree with Krauze that it probably descended from the flagellum, or if you think it was probably independently designed.
Comment by Bilbo — March 25, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
March 25th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Hi Bilbo,
"Now I'm wondering if you agree with Krauze that it probably descended from the flagellum, or if you think it was probably independently designed."
Considering that it was Mike who first pointed this out, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he answered in the affirmative.
Comment by Krauze — March 25, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
March 26th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
In the article you sight, Krauze, Mike says: "Independent evidence suggests the type III system is recent. It is not only restricted to gram-negative bacteria, but to animal and plant pathogens."
Yet at the beginning of this thread, Mike says: " the TTSS is best viewed not a pathogenic device, but as a device that elicits symbiosis." And though I haven't re-read the paper that Mike cites, I got the impression that he thought the TTSS was designed as a way of creating symbiotic relationships.
Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of this thread. I thought Mike was trying to make the case that the TTSS was originally designed for good intentions, but came to be used for what we would call evil results.
So does Mike think we should view the TTSS as an independently designed system, or as descended from the bacterial flagellum? Or perhaps the bacterial flagellum was designed first, with a secondary intention being that it some versions of it would eventually mutate into the TTSS?
Comment by Bilbo — March 26, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
March 27th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
While waiting for a reply, I thought I would ruminate about this. If I understand Mike Gene's hypothesis of Front Loaded Evolution, symbiogenesis would be one of the methods a designer would use to evolve more complex living organisms. As an analogy, we could think of lego blocks: they are intelligently designed so that they can fit together to form more complex structures. Likewise, perhaps "simple" organisms — bacteria, archebacteria, and eukarya (and should we include viruses?)– were designed so that they could join together in various ways to form more complex organisms. So the TTSS could be one of the ways a designer had planned for genetic material to be transferred from one organism to another. If it turns out that the TTSS is a morally neutral design, then the fact that occasionally it has some pathogenic result wouldn't be a major objection to its being intelligently designed.
The only other theoretical reason I can see for resisting labeling the TTSS as an intelligently designed product, is that perhaps it would make it easier for ID critics to use it as a simpler system that evolved into the bacterial flagellum. But I think there are plenty of reasons to doubt that happened. Just read the relevant parts of Mike Gene's paper that Krauze refers to.
So then the question would arise, is there some way of determining whether the TTSS was independently designed, or whether it is a mutant of the bacterial flagellum? I'm curious what would count as evidence one way or the other.
Comment by Bilbo — March 27, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
March 29th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Hi Bilbo,
Sorry you had to wait so long. I thought Mike was going to take this, as it obviously went to his opinions. Anyway, here's what I think.
By "symbiosis", most people mean "beneficial relationship", But strictly speaking, the word just means "living together", and biologists speak both of "mutually beneficial symbiosis" as well as "malicious symbiosis" (and "neutral symbiosis"). In other words, when Mike speaks of the TTSS as "a device that elicits symbiosis", he's simply saying that it enables bacteria to live close together with other organisms, without passing judgement on whether these relationships are beneficial or malicious for the host.
Comment by Krauze — March 29, 2006 @ 9:50 am
March 29th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Well, Krauze, if I had just taken the trouble to re-read the first essay Mike made reference to I would have found this at the very beginning:
"The type III secretory system (TTSS) is a subsystem of the bacterial flagellum that appears to have been spawned from the flagellum sometime after the appearance of eukaryotes."
So Mike would still say the TTSS is a mutant of the flagellum. But perhaps it was a mutant that was planned on in Front-Loaded Evolution.
Comment by Bilbo — March 29, 2006 @ 6:08 pm