Michael J. Behe

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 show more 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. show less

I think my review of this excellent and solidly researched book is most easily adduced by the complete opposite of the review written by miketroll in this collection. It is fascinating that a book which puts forward a hypothesis based on experiment (rather than Darwinian evolution which is not) can create so much posturing and bigotry amongst scientists and the faithful alike.
I am a scientist; I have always found any religion an indicator of personal inadequacy but I realise that scientists show more can also treat ideas as a matter of faith independent of the evidence for or against (cf global warming, global cooling, the Piltdown Man, phrenology, phlogiston and so on back to the dawn of thinking). Behe manages to make the astoundingly complex biochemical interactions which power the body at least accessible if not understandable. In the process he presents a solidly researched body of evidence which suggests that these molecules and their interactions could not have been the result of "gradual evolution" because it is not possible to show any intermediate steps which might have led to the function. Indeed, in many of his examples, any intermediate steps which could be imagined would have been counter evolutionary in that they would have selected against the target process.
And now back to miketroll. He says that the "true spirit of science is argument in search of truth". This is a common mistake made by the scientifically naive. Without even dipping into concepts regarding the philosophy of truth or the existential nature of reality, he and some other reviewers entirely miss the point. Science is about hypothesis - proposing a theory which matches observational data and can be tested by experiment and, most importantly, being prepared to modify or discard that theory if a better match comes along. Behe devotes a well reasoned book to the suggestion that Darwinian evolution may not be the (whole) answer and, in the process, puts forward some ideas about what might have happened. Just because these may not be very palatable doesn't mean that they are "cheap debating points" I hope you enjoy this book as much as I have show less

This promised to be an informed critique of Darwinist theory from the viewpoint of a trained biochemist. Behe goes straight for the jugular by claiming that Darwinian evolutionary theory is plain wrong; it fails to explain what is happening at the molecular level. Behe's analogy is an explanation of how a car works that doesn't even mention the engine. Realising this analogy was plain wrong, I set the book aside to read later, perhaps...

Later I rediscovered Behe as a recurrent target of show more censure in scientific journals for his specious argumentation in favour of Intelligent Design. OMG, Behe is a Fundie! Indeed, he devotes some 50 pages to Intelligent Design. Sorry, that's pseudo-science!

Behe is the scientific equivalent of David Irving, the academic Holocaust denier. Idiots may believe it, but he doesn't have the excuse of ignorance. He knows when his arguments are wrong, but uses them all the same. I really despise intelligent people who put the truth second. The true spirit of science is argument in search of truth. But Behe doesn't want an adult discussion, he justs wants to "win" by fair means or foul, scoring cheap debating points in favour of his preconceived notions. show less

An able argument in favor of intelligent design. Although the subject matter is biochemistry (and I didn't do that well in that class), Behe makes a profound case in a very absorbing and readable fashion. The thesis is that living cells contain very complex, "irreducibly complex" chemical systems, that work in ways that do not seem to allow any reasonable pathway for a Darwin-style, step-by-step evolution. Behe beats that drum until the reader does not want to hear any more, but the reason show more is that he is trying to build an unassailable fortress of arguments against those who, he knows, will attack any hint of intelligent design talk in the hallowed halls of science. show less