Picture of author.

Michael J. Behe

Author of Darwin's Black Box

15+ Works 2,822 Members 22 Reviews 1 Favorited

About the Author

Michael J. Behe is a biochemist, an intelligent design advocate, and author of Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution. He is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, and a founding senior fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
Image credit: Courtesy of Michael Behe.

Series

Works by Michael J. Behe

Associated Works

Tagged

Common Knowledge

Members

Discussions

Einstein said, " in Let's Talk Religion (November 2012)

Reviews

Behe is an advocate of intelligent design. He goes out of his way to explain that intelligent design is not a synonym for creationism. He believes in evolutionary theory, just not by "Darwinian mechanisms" - that is, not by random mutation and natural selection. He believes the earth is billions of years old (there were a few references in the book to this that were left un-cited, which was annoying).
It's critical to keep in mind that the concept of purposeful design is logically entirely separate from the idea of common descent - the idea that all organisms living today are descended from organisms that lived in the distant past. Some religious groups are opposed in principle to the idea of common descent. I am not... I think the evidence supporting descent is strong, and I have no reason to doubt it... the design argument here is not that one higher [than family] category cannot descend from another through intermediates. Rather, the argument is that one higher category cannot descend from another by means of an unplanned process such as Darwin's mechanism. (p 157, emphasis original)
I learned a few things but, while Behe claimed to write this book so it would be accessible to as many people as possible, I am here to declare that it is too technical for many readers. I like science, biology in particular, and I had a hard time with all the scientific terms and such.

I also simply disagree with his beliefs. I believe in a literal six-day creation (by God), and a young earth. While much of the information in his book regarding DNA was really interesting, none of it could prove that the evolutionary theory - by any means - is true. Granted, he wasn't really arguing that in this book. So I think that he did just fine with showing that it's not possible for random mutation and natural selection to have played a part in creating the world, but the book still didn't hold enough truth in it for me to rate it higher.

I did like one more thing he said:
Gratuitous affirmations of a dominant theory can mesmerize the unwary. They lull people into assuming that objectively difficult problems don't really matter. That they've been solved already. Or will be solved soon. Or are unimportant. Or something. They actively distract readers from noticing an idea's shortcomings. "Of course," students are effectively prompted, "everyone knows what happened here - right? You'd be blind not to see it - right?" But the complacency isn't the fruit of data or experiments. It comes from the powerful social force of everyone in the group nodding back, "Of course!" (p 25)
… (more)
 
Flagged
RachelRachelRachel | Nov 21, 2023 |
These are my criticisms of Darwin’s Black Box:

1) It turns out that many of the systems the author uses as examples of irreducible complexity are not, in fact, irreducibly complex, and have been proven so by numerous scientists. This is the most prolific avenue of criticism against the book in the years since it was published.

2) The author assumes that the current function of a given complex system must also be the original function of that system in its preceding iterations. But that isn’t always true. For example: We know from the fossil record and the anatomy of other animals that our vocal chords didn’t originally evolve as a system for generating modulated sound. Their original purpose– and a function that they still fulfill – was to anchor and coordinate the work of the musculature of our necks, shoulders, and upper torso. Sound-generation was a secondary characteristic that came into being at some point as the system evolved that ended up superseding the original function. Simplify a complex eye, and it may not function as an eye anymore – but that doesn’t mean it might not function perfectly well as something else. Systems gain additional functionality as complexity increases. We can’t always discern with certainty what, of all a complex system’s current functions, was its original. Therefore, the entire premise of "irreducible complexity" as it's put forth in this book becomes meaningless. Simpler antecedent versions of systems don't have to possess the same function as their more complex descendents at all.

3) The author doesn’t do nearly enough to account for the synergistic effects of formerly discrete systems co-evolving and combining together into new systems. As the newly combined system evolves, it eventually reaches a level of such cohesion that we can no longer discern the original discrete systems that combined to create it. Such a system will appear irreducibly complex to us, even though it did, in fact, evolve from preceding systems.

4) The author’s entire understanding of evolution is premised on the belief that simple systems must precede complex systems in evolutionary processes. This is generally the way things go – but it’s not an inviolate rule. It’s not, in fact, a necessary requisite for evolution. Surprisingly complex systems can spontaneously generate (for that matter, the author doesn’t seem to acknowledge that spontaneous generation happens). Not all preceding systems are necessarily simpler, just as not all evolved systems are necessarily more complex. His argument loses significant leverage when we recognize that the process of evolution isn’t nearly as regular and predicable as he makes it out to be.

One of the biggest misunderstandings of Darwin’s theory is the role of random mutation in the process. It’s not possible to systematically observe random mutation, nor to test it through controlled scientific experimentation, and so we don’t really talk about it. But Darwin himself acknowledged random mutation as one of the main ways that characteristics come into being in a species. Irreducible complexity really only works as a criticism of evolution if we exist in a world where all factors can be known and accounted for. The world simply doesn't work that way.

As I read this book, I got tired of the same old attitude I see in too many of the arguments that people make against the Theory of Evolution – namely, the belief that the theory as a whole must be wrong simply because it doesn’t explain everything.

Darwin’s theory of evolution never claimed to explain everything. Darwin himself never shied away from pointing out that his theory needed more development, that it fails to explain some key issues. There have always been questions left unanswered by it – there’s absolutely nothing insightful about pointing that out. It’s legitimate and important to ask those unanswered questions, and to seek for answers to them, but the mere presence of those unanswered questions isn’t enough to disprove the whole theory.

If Darwin’s Black Box had simply raised some of those unanswered questions and explored them, I would consider it one of the most important popular science books written in the past few decades. But that’s not what the book turns out to be – in the end, the author falls into the intellectually lax pitfall of unsupported logic that allows him to leap from the statement, “There are some things that evolution doesn’t explain” to, “The Theory of Evolution fails!” You need a whole lot more than a few unanswered questions to support a conclusion that big.

If you believe in Intelligent Design, in any of its many forms, that’s fine. Argue for it on its own merits. You can’t claim to have proven it simply by pointing out that our current understanding of evolution leaves some questions unanswered.
… (more)
 
Flagged
johnthelibrarian | 18 other reviews | Aug 11, 2020 |
The creation/evolution debate is one I find interesting, but not that interesting. I've said in the past that I'd like to read more on evolution, but the truth is, I haven't. And this book, well, I've heard about it for years, but it wasn't until I picked up a copy of it at a book sale that I actually got around to reading it. At one point I checked the copyright date and saw that it was first published in 1996. Oy! I am a master of procrastination! Anyway, I digress. In Darwin's Black Box, Professor Behe examines Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection in light of the findings of (then) current biochemistry. He offers a number of examples showing that biological systems are incredibly complex mechanisms and could not have developed piecemeal from random mutations. I found it an fascinating read. Oh, not his arguments about evolution. This book has been in print so long that I've heard most of them before in other media. What I really enjoyed was his examples--descriptions of some natural wonders that are happening all around us. It took me back to childhood days when I'd pore over science books from the library.
--J.
… (more)
 
Flagged
Hamburgerclan | 18 other reviews | Mar 3, 2020 |
Great book, challenging evolution - but written by a secular scientist not just Biblical creationist.
½
 
Flagged
matthewgray | 18 other reviews | Oct 3, 2019 |

Lists

Awards

You May Also Like

Associated Authors

Statistics

Works
15
Also by
4
Members
2,822
Popularity
#9,090
Rating
½ 3.5
Reviews
22
ISBNs
41
Languages
9
Favorited
1

Charts & Graphs