Customer Reviews

DARWIN'S BLACK BOX: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

5 star:		(279)
4 star:		(79)
3 star:		(64)
2 star:		(49)
1 star:		(170)

 

 

Michael Behe's an apologist, by far the best apologist I've run across, for the "argument from design" objection to evolutionary theory. (Essentially argument from design amounts to "See that watch? How could it have come about without a watchmaker? How could any of its parts have originally 'evolved' independently? If they didn't, how did the watch spring up out of nowhere?" And so on.)

Intelligently, Behe recognizes that the argument from design has been responded to pretty thoroughlyat the species level. (For example, evolutionary theory has worked out how the bones of the ear evolved from a bone that articulated reptilian jaws.) So Darwin's Black Box, unlike countless somewhat apoplectic "creationist" writings, chooses the territory for its argument very carefully. Behe concedes natural selection as a force at the level of complete organisms: certain Amazon reviewers seem not to have noticed that he does allow humans and apes a common ancestor, for a glaring example.

The narrowly defined argument Behe wants to stake out is in the biochemical realm. There, he thinks, he can make a case for "irreducible complexity." In short, he thinks he can convince us that the interdependent, complex systems that constitute such things as cilia in cells could not possibly have come about as the piecemeal result of natural selection.

The first half of this book is comprised of lengthy, extremely accessible and enjoyable descriptions of exactly how the smallest cellular mechanisms work. The latter half consists of an attempt to assert the irreducible complexity of those mechanisms. If cilia in cells can't be accounted for by natural selection, says Behe, then there must be intelligent design at work on that level.

To synopsize: Behe concedes the evolution of organisms, but argues that the complexity of life at the cellular level proves the existence of "intelligent design" -- of God. God, in a sentence, is in the cellular details for Behe.

I wouldn't dream of endorsing or refuting this book's arguments here. I'm not here to blow on already hot embers for anyone; I just thought an intelligent reader would want to understand the basic outlines of what this book tries to do. Some of the positive reviews from religious types seem not to have been based on this book at all...

I don't really think the harshly negative reviewers get the point, nor are they being fair. Biochemistry was my undergraduate major, and I worked as a geneticist for a few years afterward. From that point of view, I don't think Behe's arguments are inherently flawed or bad science.

As Behe points out, there is a disconnect in evolution's explanation of microscale processes (e.g. biochemical: protein-protein interactions) compared with macroscale processes (e.g., functional gene mutations such as commonly seen in bacteria). It is difficult to see how mostly benign chemicals, that react primarily with respect to strong or electromagnetic forces, necessarily combine in self-advantageous (or self-disadvantageous), reproducible ways under a competitive survival paradigm.

Einstein and his group pointed out that gravity does not work on the chemical level (i.e. microscale). Behe merely points out the same thing with respect to evolution in biomolecules. My only complaint was that Behe inferred the intelligent design aspect too soon in the book. I would have liked more examples of biological irreducible complexity since I'm not sure that's the winning argument. That is, if you take away one piece, or that the mousetrap is made of paper, perhaps it functioned some other way than as a mousetrap. I thought the ATP synthesis was a nice example, but I found myself wanting more.

I thought the killer point Behe made, that I agree with, is the intolerant intellectual atmosphere so pervasive in many areas of science, particularly biology. I believe this has a large a priori effect on the approaches taken in research, or on reporting findings. This intolerant culture might come from the vehement attacks by creationists on the other side, which may in turn tend to galvanize the molecular biology community. Who knows? I do, however, believe scientists are too quick to discredit, or label as a creationist or idiot, anyone who challenges the evolution dogma on any scale.

Scientists give up too quickly if they think evolution is the sine qua non on every level. The little changes to big changes cliche is tired and needs more.

Behe points out, pretty simply I might add, that it is no sillier to say that God fills the gaps than to say evolution fills the gaps. Let's face it, evolution simply cannot explain microscale biochemical processes. Perhaps something else does, but evolution doesn't.

Cheers to Behe.

No one can possibly deny that this is a well-written, well-explicated book, worthy of any idle summer day. As a student of molecular biology and philosophy, Behe was able to provide explanations for events that I know are well beyond my level, yet still make them accessible. So then, if this book is a well written piece of literature, why are there so many mixed reviews?

The question isn't so much the subject matter, but the context and prejudice the reader brings to it. Both those pro and against this book desperately want it to be Creationist. This is a gross simplification of a very complicated matter. While many authors want to simplify Darwinism and their stance, Behe takes the opposite approach. He mentions irreducible complexities not as a means of awing the reader into believing in a god figure, but to demonstrate that the gradualism preached in Darwinism has many holes in it.

And the fact that Darwinism is fallible is really the core of the issue. After talking to one of my biology professors and one of my bioochem professors, its pretty understood that many points of Darwinism is up for contention. For instance, Darwin proposed that the initial foundation of life would take a much longer time than fossil records show. Behe is not assaulting the principles of aethism and forcing religion on people; rather he asks the question, if Darwin was alive today and knew the things about molecular biology available now, would he still propose his theory?

Behe makes many concessions, going on the record to say that he believes man was descended from a common ancestor as the apes and that the world was created billions of years ago. He also recognizes Darwinism does occur. It just isn't the sole means of evolution, especially at the molecular level.

If you want a good book to read and have an interest in science and contemporary issues, you should definitely pick up the book. Even if you don't agree with the conclusions (I didn't), Behe teaches the subject with such clarity and passion that you will come away having learned something.

As a biochemist interested in DNA structures and the origins of complex systems, I was delighted to hear that someone in my area of research had written a book on this subject. Behe does a good job of trying to convey the problem. If anything, molecular systems are even MORE complex than detailed in his well written and wonder-filled descriptions. However, I was surprised and frustrated to find the use of poor logic and factual errors throughout the book. For example, Behe can't find articles that he LIKES about the molecular evolution of flagella, so he then proceeds to claim that these articles simply don't exist. There are entire textbooks with titles like "Molecular Evolution" (search Amazon.com and see for yourself), and yet Behe insists that nothing has been written on the subject, and concludes that the reason for this is because no one has been able to find any detailed evidence for molecular evolution.

One of the examples cited of "irreducible complexity" is the bacterial flagellum. Behe claims that 40 proteins are necessary for a fully functional flagellum. Whilst this is true for E.coli, flagella in many bacteria are made from fewer proteins - for example, in the bacterium that causes syphilis (Treponema pallidum), there are a total of 38 flagellar proteins; in the bacterium that causes lyme disease (Borrelia burgdorferi), there are only 35 flagellar proteins; finally, in a bacteria associated with ulcers (Helicobacter pylori) there are only 33 proteins necessary to form complete, fully functional flagella. It is likely that as new bacterial genomes continue to be sequenced (at the rate of about one a month!), organisms will be found which require even fewer genes to make a completely functional flagella. So this "irreducible complex" of 40 proteins has shrunk to 33 proteins, in the past 2 years of research! Behe's argument is that EVERY ONE of the 40 proteins are necessary. Obviously 7 of those 40 aren't completely necessary. Maybe it's only 30 or perhaps even 20 proteins that are absolutely necessary? It's hard to say, but it is very dangerous to make such dogmatic statements as "this system is irreducibly complex", especially when the system is made up of proteins that have other normal functions in the cell, apart from flagella - such as the GTPase proteins. For a more fair treatment of the subject of flagella (and bacteria and molecular evolution in general), I can happily recommend reading "The Outer Reaches of Life", by John Postgate (also available through Amazon.com), which is an excellent treatise about bacteria written for the "non-scientific reader".

Of course there is a need to explain the origins of biochemical complexity. But declaring "intelligent design by a miracle" to be this method is neither scientific nor helpful. I guess my advice would be similar to that of Huxley about Darwin's Origin of the Species - please read Behe's book and decide for yourself!

I found this book to be a remarkably thorough, dispassionate, readable, and proficient evaluation of essential criteria that an evolutionary theory must meet regarding the origins of life in order to continue to stand. Evolutionary theory hobbles itself by allowing only memoryless, purposeless, random processes to account for all life. Behe examines whether what we know about biochemistry can support such a postulate. He finds and shows that living molecular biochemical machinery is extremely, reemphasize extremely, complex, and cannot be made any simpler without destroying its function. Moreover, according to his rather comprehensive survey of the Biochemistry literature, no one out there has ever shown any simpler working way to make these machines, as a more "primitive" step in an evolutionary path to what now exists. They either only wave their hands and say it must have been so because evolution is true, or they make up simplistic, unrelated mathematical or mechanical structures that seem to gradually progress from simplicity to complexity, and use them to "prove" that the living biochemical world must have done so, without ever showing that the actual biochemical world ever did so or could ever do so by identifiable biochemical evolutionary steps. For example, he shows that the clotting mechanism is extremely complex, and must be so to work. The evolutionary theorists fail to ever show that there either could be or was a simpler way to handle clotting. If an attempt is mounted to make it simpler, clotting simply does not work and becomes lethal. All steps are essential. He repeats this demonstration for a number of biochemical systems.

Speaking for myself, Behe comes as close as anyone I have ever read to presenting a formal disproof of the evolutionary hypothesis in connection with an aspect of life common to every living thing: biochemical cellular machinery. Evolution requires by its axioms gradual, not unavoidably sudden, increases in complexity. It has no way of explaining sudden, coordinated complexity. But the irreducible coordinated complexity of biochemistry in a cell makes the complexity of the Pentium III pale in comparison. The sudden appearance of such a phenomenal degree of complexity by chance processes is frankly not at all credible, rather has become an embarassment to those who propose it. And if evolutionary thought fails at this important juncture, then it fails altogether as a purely mechanistic hypothesis for the existence of life.

I have never seen a proper rebuttal to this book. Those who criticize Behe, like some reviews here, seem to repeat the kind of blind, unscientific allegation he highlights in the book itself, almost as if they had not even read the book. I would be very interested in specific disproofs of the irreducible complexity of the actual biochemical machines and processes found in life. Until that time, this book, in my book, constitutes more than any other a formal disproof of the evolutionary hypothesis.

I am not a biologist, but I have a degree in philosophy and am a fairly well read guy. I found this book quite invigorating and accessible to non-scientists such as myself. One of the most striking things I have discovered about the vehement critiques of this book both at the Amazon website as well as other Behe websites is the alarming degree of hatred and resentment that has been displayed by Behe's fellow scientists. Now, whether Behe is right or wrong is beside the point when one just considers how his attackers have chosen to respond to his book; using mere ad hominum tactics does not instill in me a sense of confidence in Behe's adversaries' actually knowing what they are talking about. After all, when one feels compelled to do nothing more than hurl insults at the author of a book instead of actually taking the time to engage the argument of the book, that tells me that the critic has an insecurity complex. And that is precisely what the majority of Behe's peers have done; they have basically said "How DARE he challenge Darwinian natural selection? " As the late Carl Sagan said so vociferously so many times, science is SUPPOSED to be an open forum for discussion. No matter how smart a person is or what his or her credentials are, no one view is supposed to be categorically accepted or categorically rejected without due process. Categorically rejecting Behe's theory of IC and trying to attack him personally tells me just how little so many of these "professional"scientists actually know about science.

Now, I would like to answer all of the reviewers who complained that Behe did not present his case to his scientific colleagues but instead wrote a book for the general public & thereby bypassed his colleagues. Well, I have a question for you: how many of you Darwinists have heard of the Wistar Institute? I would imagine very few, unless you read about it in Behe's book. I have read about it elsewhere in other books & have always found it curious that so few people are aware of this discussion from the late 1960s. What Wistar was was a forum that put together many of the world's best biologists together with the world's best mathmaticians. It was designed to prove the mathmatcial validity of Darwinian natural selection. It was, however, a complete distaster. The odds proved so enormous that Darwinism seemed to be mathmatically impossible. Wistar was thereby shoved into the closet & hidden because it was an embarrasment to the Darwinists. Now, I ask the question: was Wistar bad science(like so many evolutionists have called Behe's book?). If so, WHY? One thing is for certain; nobody can accuse the scientists involved in Wistar to be Creationists - they were atheists to a last man, for heaven's sake. It was most definetly not a conspiracy in which the outcome was jury-rigged. Now, for all I know, some reason may preclude mathmatics from being a reliable tool to use in discussions of Darwinian natural selection. But if so, it must be PROVED thus. To date, all I have read of this critique of Darwinism have been strawman arguments that state that: well, just because it is highly improbable does not mean it can't happen by chance. After all, what are the odds of getting a winning hand in a poker game? Arguments like these (most famously instituted by pro-Darwinians such as Doolittle) grossly miss the point. The point is not that it is highly improbable but rather that the odds are so astronomical as to make the plausibility impossible. Now, to give an example: according to the laws of quantum mechanics, if all of the atoms on the moon had exactly the same spin at exactly the same second, the moon COULD leave it's orbit from the earth. This is a probabalistic fact. However, the point is, it WON'T. Even though it is mathmatically possible, it is realistically impossible because the moon has too many atoms to make this feat plausible. The same goes for the odds of Darwinian evolution happening just so in the mere 4 & a half billion years (or so) that the earth has been around. Now, I ask the question, yea hardcore Darwinists: why is it that the Wistar Institute does not warrant even so much as a footnote on any collegiate or high school biology text in the world? After all, if it had shown so much as a shred of evidence that Darwinism was mathmatically acceptable, I GUARANTEE you that it would be in EVERY student's biological textbook and would be as familiar to the layman's vocabulary as Einstein's theory of Relativity. Is this not a double-standard? If the scientists at Wistar were wrong (they could have been) then they must be PROVEN wrong. However, after 30 years, as MIT theoretical physicist Gerald Schoeder has attested, the odds have if anything gone UP. I find it rather fascinating that the same neo-Darwinists who find their paradigm so mathematically credible do not stay up at night with dark thoughts about the moon leaving the orbit of the Earth. So, where am I going with this, you ask? Well, this is my point: if the scientific community is and was unwilling to accept the findings of it's own old-boy-club happy-as-can-be atheists, how in the world do you expect them to pay attention to a molecular biologist who dares to mention the dirty G word? I think that Behe deserves some slack on this one. That is, unless you believe in the double-standards that Sagan so vehemently wanted to jettison from the realm of science....

I have googled like crazy to find reviews for this book. It is astonishing how many people berate Mr. Behe and the logic that he presents in this book while at the same offering no scientific counter arguments to dispute his claims. Most reviews simply say something like, "Behe makes the classic creationist argument that things are too complex, so God must have done it. This book is essentially just more IC propoganda," or "Behe sounds convincing, but ultimately there is no basis for his claims," and so on. I have read whole pages full of these types of reviews and have yet to find someone actually using a scientific theory or scenario to prove even ONE of Mr. Behe's assertions wrong!

I found the book very solid on many points. His logic and arguments are not strewn with a bunch of strange contortions or psychological backflips. Just simple, sound thought processes that anyone can understand. The many descriptions of molecular biological processes are intricate, lively, enjoyable to read and yet real, serious science. The scientific facts themselves are so extremely fascinating to me. Who could have thought such an incredible world lives within each of us?

A great book and a fun read! Enjoy!

Some of the arguments below against Behe's thesis appear strong on some points; I'm not a biologist, and they don't give anything like the kind of detail Behe offers. But even if Behe were wrong, I would give him four stars. First, for the apt metaphors, wit, and sardonic story telling by which he makes his argument. Second, for the excellent biology lesson he gives along the way. I think I would enjoy his classes, for he explains the functions of the cell in an extraordinary way. Far from "wearing the reader down," he illustrates biological systems in a step-by-step manner that I think most intelligent readers will find fascinating. (Though a few parts are difficult.) Third, even if he's wrong, evolutionary scientists can take his challenge as a homework assignment, a list of "some riddles that still need to solved."

If he's right, five stars would be too stingy.

Nor is it a serious argument to complain, as a couple reviewers do below, that Behe talks about molecular biology more than gross anatomy. The former is his field, after all.

Some seem upset that the scientifically illiterate masses might be led away from the true faith by Behe. "This people that knoweth not the (natural) law -- a curse is on them!"

I feel a little more detached from the argument, because my faith depends less on the prehistoric record of the earth that on the fact that God does act in history. Human life itself, I think, is a kind of "punctuated equilibrium." It is clear to me that on occasion, God interfers in the "normal" course of human events. Whether or not He did so in the past lives of animal species is, I think, a lesser question. Behe argues that that question is not as settled as many believe. I think to prove him wrong, a detailed and dispassionate refutation is in order. And if the counter-argument is successful, doesn't that make it all the more helpful of Behe to have issued the challenge? We'll all learn a great deal about God's creation in the process. So my advice is to read the book, and keep an open mind.

Author, Jesus and the Religions of Man (July 2000)

d.marshall@sun.ac.jp

Before reviewing a book on such a controversial topic, I feel it is necessary to state a bit about myself, to give readers of my review some context. For years, I have been researching origin of life theories. As a Christian who loves science, in the beginning I felt pressured to "choose a side." (The sides being either evolution or intelligent design -- I feel young earth creationism isn't an option.) I have as of yet NOT chosen a side because of insubstantial evidence (not to mention pettiness and name-calling) from both camps, and have instead happily joined the ranks of Francis Collins' "Biologos" community. (I encourage anyone to check it out: [...] )

First of all, I found Behe's text very accessible and in places entertaining for a lay person such as myself. I have only the credentials of a Bachelors of Science (in other words, three semesters of science courses at the undergraduate level). This is the third book I've read on intelligent design, and the only one that I think provides any kind of argument whatsoever. (Not a great argument, but we'll get to that later.)

Behe (and myself) does not have any complaint against microevolution. He states that there was indeed a common ancestor, and that microevolution is an observable process, responsible for Darwin's finches, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and so forth. (I respect that, because I think arguments such as "the fossil record is incomplete, therefore evolution could not have happened" are nonsense. What did you expect, an intricately cataloged database on papyrus leaves?) The question is not whether or not evolution actually occurs, but is it responsible for the origin of life?

Behe argues that the answer is no. This is where it got interesting for me. I can remember sitting in my 10th grade honors biology class 10 years ago, reading my textbook, and listening to my teacher explain how the organelles of cells all started out as individual life forms but eventually started working together and eventually becoming one organism, what we now know as a eukaryotic cell. (This, I learned in Darwin's Black Box, is called "symbiosis theory.") I don't see how that can make any kid of sense to any thinking person (and indeed, symbiosis theory has received much criticism from the scientific community). Further, it does not explain where the organelles came from in the first place. This is where Behe introduces his theory of irreducible complexity, the argument being that such an intricate system as the cell could not have evolved from "numerous, slight successive mutations" that are required in order for natural selection to work. He states that the evidence points to an intelligent designer, a being (or beings) that carefully engineered all irreducibly complex systems.

Here is where I think Behe's argument starts to break down. I do think he makes excellent points about the failure of natural selection to explain the origin of life. (He cites dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed scientific publications and points out that none of them provide any kind of scientific explanation, only speculation.) However, design starts to run out of steam too, as he writes, "Just because we can infer that some biochemical systems were designed does not mean that all subcellular systems were explicitly designed" (p. 205). In other words, his theory explains SOME irreducibly complex systems, but not others. Well, then where did the rest of them come from? Does natural selection take over from there? How? Why? Further, he states that many scientists are biased against his theory because, by its very definition, it invokes the supernatural, and many scientists are only interested in natural causes and the natural world. While I have no doubt that something beyond this world does exist, that's not the point: the scientific method was developed for us to explore the natural world, and to start using supernatural causes would be to change the very definition of science. Maybe the definition needs to be changed... but that seems like very unstable ground to me. On the other hand, to not acknowledge the supernatural limits our understanding of our existence. At any rate, I can at least understand why other scientists are resistant to Behe's theory.

In sum, of the books I've read on intelligent design, I do believe this is the best one. (I wouldn't even recommend the other ones I've read to creationists.) However, as far as explaining the origin of life goes, my intellect remains unsatisfied.

As a biochemist and a physician, I find Dr. Behe's argument for the "irreducible complexity" of biologic organisms fascinating. It is logical and persuasive. Is this book without fault? No. But it does offer up a very interesting and compelling dilemma to the currently model of biochemical evolution (especially in terms of speciation). I can understand why many are not willing to "jump" to Intelligent Design as the explanation of these difficulties. However, at the very least, "irreducible complexity" does expose the fact that our current understanding of the "evolution" of life falls pitifully short of explaining the amazing complexity of biological systems. Forget about the flagellum... Let's talk about the human brain!

A common criticism of the book is that Dr. Behe is biased because he believes in God. That probably is true (and it may be something that Dr. Behe would even admit). However, being biased does not negate a good argument. A sound argument will stand on its own despite the inevitable (or possibly even reprehensible) bias that an author may have. Honestly, is anyone really free from bias? A far better approach is to evaluate each argument on its own merit.

Finally, it's interesting that if you strip away all the veneers, what most of these reviews are about is a debate between theism and atheism. We know that both camps are VERY biased people. And we know that they can't both be right... Here's to hoping that we all choose wisely...