Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe

Dec 10, 2008 Rohan rated it 3 of 5 stars

As an evolutionary biologist I feel obligated to review this book. Behe really does give a valuable critique of evolutionary theory by giving canonical examples of systems that he believes cannot evolve.

Behe's thesis is weak in the sense that he doesn't discredit evolution, he simply thinks there are cases that evolution cannot handle at the level of cellular systems (A strong version would argue that evolution is impossible or not true).

What makes the book valuable is that it shines a light on...more As an evolutionary biologist I feel obligated to review this book. Behe really does give a valuable critique of evolutionary theory by giving canonical examples of systems that he believes cannot evolve.

Behe's thesis is weak in the sense that he doesn't discredit evolution, he simply thinks there are cases that evolution cannot handle at the level of cellular systems (A strong version would argue that evolution is impossible or not true).

What makes the book valuable is that it shines a light on a real scientific problem: the evolution of complex biochemical systems. Researchers are just beginning to tackle this problem because it is finally becoming tractable, with the development with fancy genomic/proteomic technologies that hope to fully examine the interactions occurring between genes and molecules in the cell.

Are some biochemical systems irreducibly complex? I doubt it. The state of the art in a 100 years (probably less) should conquer Behe's objections.

The main problem I have with Behe is how he attacks the scientific literature for not attacking the problems he poses, when they have been intractable up until now. It is impossible to give a step-by-step explanation for the evolution of a system, when all the intermediates have long been gone. Evolutionary biologists try to infer this information by comparing genetic sequence, research which Behe quickly papers over by saying that a third of papers published in JME (Journal of Molecular Evolution) simply compare gene and protein sequences. As a biochemist, Behe completely ignores the overwhelming evidence for evolution from genetics. When the problem of how protein sequence codes for protein function is one of the great unsolved mysteries in modern science, looking for evolutionary evidence in modern biochemistry is barking up the wrong tree. We simply don't know how changes in gene sequence over evolutionary time affects how proteins function in their systems context. Behe jumps to design when the groundwork he needs to argue coherently for design (or for evolution) in his examples simply does not exist.

Now that this groundwork is finally being done, Behe's particular argument for design can be settled the old fashioned way--through hard scientific work--in the coming century. Behe is guilty of a cardinal scientific sin: jumping to conclusions without having real empirical data to back up his claim.

NOTE: one of the problems with evolutionary biology is that all living things share the genetic code, meaning that arguing what existed before the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) is pure speculation. Behe might believe that the LUCA (and its genetic code) was designed, and everything else evolved from it. The problem is that there is no hard evidence for how it all happened, just educated guesses. This is where Behe's criticism is best, but it is also where it is the most meaningless. For a interesting hypothesis (which is probably wrong in many respects) on the evolution of the genetic code, check out this paper: "On the origin of the translation system and the genetic code in the RNA world by means of natural selection, exaptation, and subfunctionalization." Wolf YI, Koonin EV. Biol Direct. 2007 May 31;2:14.

(less)

like 18 likes · see review

May 15, 2013 James Boling rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: science, nonfiction

I can't claim to be well-versed in biochemistry, so I cannot really comment on the validity of Behe's claims in favor of intelligent design. I was simply floored, however, with the descriptions of the biochemical function of the body. A great example is his use of an analogy with the self-sufficient spaceship as a way to describe cell functions. Simply amazing.

like 3 likes · see review

Aug 01, 2008 Stephen Andrew rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: anyone interested

Recommended to Stephen by: found it myself

I have noticed that all the reviews of this book that are negative or refer to it as well debunked and (every scientist already knows this is crap). Not one can give a specific simple example of how behe can be challenged. simply stated they have no such answer. They can't. Because Behe is right. no matter whether you believe in creationism or design or evolution or what ever your stance, there simply is no well articulated answer to his argument. when someone points one out. not with some footn...more

like 8 likes · see review

Jul 04, 2007 John rated it 1 of 5 stars Recommends it for: dim, stubborn Creationists

Shelves: non-fiction

Michael Behe is a perfect example of Science gone wrong. He demonstrates that science has come so far in the past several decades that we now have more questions, and fewer answers, than ever before. Rather than inspiring him to seek out the hard-to-find answers, he seems content, indeed determined, to invoke a higher being as the answer to the difficult questions of science. The logic of his arguements is frustrating, to say the least, because it can't be argued. What ever he thinks he knows a...more Michael Behe is a perfect example of Science gone wrong. He demonstrates that science has come so far in the past several decades that we now have more questions, and fewer answers, than ever before. Rather than inspiring him to seek out the hard-to-find answers, he seems content, indeed determined, to invoke a higher being as the answer to the difficult questions of science. The logic of his arguements is frustrating, to say the least, because it can't be argued. What ever he thinks he knows about biochemistry prevents him from even considering other potencial explanations. He holds stubbornly to science and the scientific method, yet the heart of his arguements are based on analogies to man-made machines, watches and mousetraps, that have almost nothing in common with real live organisms. Not content to compare apple to oranges, he compares apples to gameboys, then argues that no one would doubt the existence of gameboy engineers. How does one respond to this? Add to this a stubborn faith in a Creator God and the arguement completely exits the realm of science.
Mr. Behe's book is a painstaking read, not only for it's lackluster prose and bad science, but most especially for it's arrogance and for the blinders that so obviously obstruct his vision of reality. Here's a clue, Michael: Natural systems portray the illusion of design because only those organisms, only those biochemical systems, only those MOLECULES that conform to the laws of the universe are able to survive, to exist. What is, is because it can be. All else parishes in the struggle for survival, the struggle for resources, the struggle for reproduction. We are here because we obey natures laws, because we have been shaped, tweaked, winnowed by those laws. "Irriducible complexity" is another name for "we don't know the details (yet)." And perhaps we'll never know. But what I do know is that Intelligent Design is an unfortunate product of intelligent people mixing up there causes and effects.
Mr. Behe has been thoroughly discredited by science. It's just unfortunate that there are enough laymen with enough blind faith to keep his ideas circulating through the collective consciousness. Read this book for an exercise in patience, an exercise in cheek biting, or if you're really in to masochism.(less)

like 5 likes · see review

Jun 23, 2008 Brian Hodges rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: science, non-fiction

This is the book that was supposed to bring Intelligent Design into the scientific mainstream. A close look at its reviews show a bunch of really LOW scores from scientific types (who think any mention of ID is automatically grounds for the "bad scientist of the year" award) and really HIGH scores from creationist types (who are pretty much happy with any book that helps solidfy their point of view). I rate this one somewhere in the middle. As a Christian who also sees the strength in the theory...more This is the book that was supposed to bring Intelligent Design into the scientific mainstream. A close look at its reviews show a bunch of really LOW scores from scientific types (who think any mention of ID is automatically grounds for the "bad scientist of the year" award) and really HIGH scores from creationist types (who are pretty much happy with any book that helps solidfy their point of view). I rate this one somewhere in the middle. As a Christian who also sees the strength in the theory of evolution (check out my reviews of "The Selfish Gene" and "How the Mind Works"), I read this book with a healthy dose of skepticism coupled with a willingness to go along with the author's ideas if they sounded reasonable and scientific. As far as I'm concerned Michael Behe didn't blow me away... nor did he fail miserably.

Behe uses the field of Biochemistry to make his case for Intelligent Design. It is here, in the world of the very very small sub-cellular systems, where Behe says the mechanics of natural selection fail to explain the complexity of life on this planet. Coining the phrase "Irreducibly Complex" Behe tries to make the case that certain biochemical systems (like blood clotting, immune systems and bacterial flagellum) could not have evolved gradually. If they had, Behe claims, the intermediary systems would have been a detriment to the organism and natural selection would have eliminated it.

There has been a LOT of criticism of Behe's "Irreducibly Complex" cornerstone. Scientists have shown organisms that DO have precursors to the systems Behe claimed were irreducibly complex. The individual parts simply evolved for DIFFERENT tasks than what they eventually ended up doing (parts for the flagellum in earlier organisms were used as a kind of "stinger" for example).

But for all the bluster, I do think there is some merit to Behe's ideas. SOME. Because, sure while an earlier organism had a stinger and a later organism had a flagellum, there DOES seem to be an anamoly in explaining how they TRANSITIONED from one to the other without hurting the organism in the interim. At the very least, even if it doesn't indicate Design, it does beg a lot of other questions in the category of "how the hell?"

In the end though, Behe falls dreadfully short of making the case for Intelligent Design as a legitmate science. He puts forward no clear ideas for how one would actually TEST the hypothesis (kind of a necessary aspect for scientific research). His whole argument is based on inductive reasoning. Which makes interesting thoughts to ponder from a purely HEURISTIC point of view but he's perhaps a bit premature in presenting this as an actual science. In the end I was really disappointed that he spent more time complaining about the lack of progress made in the area of biochemical evolution, yet didn't actually offer any ideas for what scientists SHOULD be doing to find the answers. And he certainly didn't present any ideas on how one might go about researching, much less proving, a proper theory of Intelligent Design.

As far as the actual book goes, Behe fluctuates constantly between silly and oversimplified (almost patronizing) analogies and hardcore scientific explanations that were incredibly hard to follow. This latter aspect wasn't necessarily his fault. He is, after all, dealing with a realm of science that is REALLY freaking complex (the description of a blood clotting cacade alone is enough to make you go cross-eyed). And unlike his nemesis Richard Dawkins, Behe lacks the lucid gift of prose that might make those complex issues easier to grasp and follow.

In the end, the book wasn't great. Though it wasn't horrible either. And it certainly did nothing to put Intelligent Design on any level to compete with Darwinism. But for an open-minded scientist Behe's book SHOULD at least provide some points to think about outside that proverbial black box.
(less)

like 4 likes · see review

Nov 28, 2012 Kevin Kirkpatrick rated it 5 of 5 stars

It has been 16 years since Biochemist, Michael J. Behe, wrote his controversial exposé on Darwinian Evolution and I find it fascinating that this book is just as polarizing now as it was when first published. A read of the many reviews offered invariably shows a divided attitude; people either totally agree and applaud the work or they write it off as bad science and trash the author. No one seems to be neutral about his book, and for good reason.

Much like the state of America today, the origins...more

like 1 like · see review

Apr 25, 2012 David Wells rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: creationist

I read this as a counter point book to my books on evolution. In this book, the author, Michael Behe, presents an idea that he calls irreducible complexity. In a nut shell, a biological system is irreducibly complex if you are unable to take a piece of it away and have it still function in the same way. Evolution operates through gradual changes; so, an irreducibly complex system cannot be brought about by evolution, because that would require a drastic change, where all parts of the system come...more I read this as a counter point book to my books on evolution. In this book, the author, Michael Behe, presents an idea that he calls irreducible complexity. In a nut shell, a biological system is irreducibly complex if you are unable to take a piece of it away and have it still function in the same way. Evolution operates through gradual changes; so, an irreducibly complex system cannot be brought about by evolution, because that would require a drastic change, where all parts of the system come into existence at the same time. This leads to the idea that since we cannot see a way for evolution to do this, there must have been an intelligent designer who created the system.

Behe demonstrates his idea through an analog, the spring loaded mouse trap. This is composed of a hammer, spring, catch, holding bar, and a platform; take away any of these pieces and the mouse trap will no loner work. So, it is impossible for there to be a gradual build-up of this mousetrap in an evolutionary way. Behe, then goes into list several examples of biological systems that he thinks are irreducibly complex, this includes: cilium (little hairs of a single celled organism that help it swim), the bacterial flagellum (some bacteria have a whip like tail that gives them locomotion), the immune system, the blood clotting cascade (the chemical reactions your body uses to clot its blood), etc.

A problem with all of this is it depends on an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know how it was done, does not mean an intelligence did it. As Frances Bacon once said, "the subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the subtlety of argument." What Behe does not seem to realize, is there are ways to gradually improve systems to the point that they are irreducibly complex. There can be, for example, "scaffolding" in place with a less efficient system that supports the new system and then is evolved away because it wastes resources to keep both the scaffolding and the more efficient, but irreducibly complex system in place. Another point that is lost on Behe, is the current function might not have been needed before each of the pieces were assembled. It has been shown, for example with the bacterial flagellum, that each piece of it are already in use in the bacteria doing other jobs.

In later chapters, Behe takes notes from creationists, and decides to quote mine biologists. He tries to paint the picture that evolution is falling out of favor with the scientists. This only works if you don't look up the quotes and trust his research. He even goes as far to pick up one of their books, claiming that not a word of evolution is mentioned in it (judging from the index). I was reading an article by the author of this textbook and he was baffled on how Behe got it all wrong. He pointed out, his book expected the audience to already know evolution and his book was not even about that topic; but he did find some chapters in his book that mention evolution. This is an even bigger disappointment for me as it shoots his credibility to hell. I have listened too much to the biological community to believe evolution, something they claim is fundamental to the science, is falling out of favor.

In closing, this has not swayed me to believe in Intelligent Design over the theory of evolution; it is an old and interesting idea that depends on the god of the gaps. That and he really could have left out the BS about biologists not supporting evolution.
(less)

like 1 like · see review

Jul 30, 2011 Amanda rated it 3 of 5 stars

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...more 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: http://biologos.org/ )

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.(less)

like · see review

Jul 23, 2011 Brett rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: science, apologetics, worldview

Behe does make an attempt at points in this book to make it readable and understandable to someone that doesn't have a Ph.D. in biology. However, the majority of Part II is not readable by the average reader. He admits this and does warn the reader so I do not hold it against him. My low rating comes from his attempt to merge this mind numbing scientific detail with his logical argument against evolution. Behe needed to make up his mind to whom he wanted to write this book. Who is the target aud...more

like · see review

Apr 26, 2011 Brian Loftus rated it 4 of 5 stars

I'm no professional scientist but I do remember enough from basic college level biology to be able to follow along with Behe's arguments. I am a Christian and before reading this book really had no strong opinion on the creation vs evolution debate.
I think many of the reviews here misunderstand much of what he is saying in the book. I actually got my B.A. in Religious studies and one of my biggest beefs with the way people study was that they were all reductionists. Jumping on one idea and usin...more

like · see review

Mar 26, 2011 Tyler Mickley rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Although this guy has credentials, reading through this book I was appauled at many of the ideas that he supported, evidence he rejected, and over-all inability to process simple concepts of evolution. In so many words this book reads "Life is really, really, really complex. I can't imagine and refuse to believe that it arose to be this complex through self-driven processes". He spends all this time talking about how astronomically unlikely it is that life drives itself and then at the end of th...more

like · see review

Oct 24, 2010 Anna rated it 4 of 5 stars

I came upon this book by chance, and picked it up from the library. Let me start by saying I have never read a book about evolution, have never really cared either way about it. Recently I have thought that many religious people assert that Darwin's theory of Evolution does not negate a creator, and leave the argument at that. Most of those people are like me and have no knowledge of natural science enough to form an argument on their terms. The main thesis of this book is that modern biochemist...more

like · see review

Aug 14, 2010 Robert rated it 1 of 5 stars

This rating is not reflective of my agreement/disagreement with the argument for Intelligent Design.

A well laid out argument for Intelligent Design. As good an argument as there can be. Behe does a good job of separating his argument from the traditional arguments of the worlds monotheistic faiths.

Unfortunately, it becomes a regressive argument. To paraphrase, Abiogenesis is 'irreducibly complex' therefor the only answer is a Creator who, by nature of his creations, must be exponentially more...more

like · see review

Mar 28, 2010 Matt rated it 2 of 5 stars

Being deeply religious and believing in evolution, I should first say that my personal biases definitely affect my rating of this book. I read this book as I participated in an evolution and intelligent design seminar where we read and discussed Darwin's Origin of the Species, this book, and Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God. I felt that this book is fairly well written and he highlighted some very interesting examples, but I found two major flaws in his arguments against evolution:

1. His ar...more

like · see review

Mar 16, 2010 Brad rated it 2 of 5 stars

Behe makes the tired case that the complexity of the microbiological system is evidence against evolutionary theory. He does this by presenting overwhelming complex microbiological systems. In one detailed case study after another, he trots out the standard fare, the flagellum of microorganisms, the bombardier beetle, the human eye. He holds the complexity of these systems to be irreducibly complex. That is, to remove one element of the system is to remove one element from these complex systems...more Behe makes the tired case that the complexity of the microbiological system is evidence against evolutionary theory. He does this by presenting overwhelming complex microbiological systems. In one detailed case study after another, he trots out the standard fare, the flagellum of microorganisms, the bombardier beetle, the human eye. He holds the complexity of these systems to be irreducibly complex. That is, to remove one element of the system is to remove one element from these complex systems is to render the whole system inert. Behe argues that such systems could not have arisen via mutation and natural selection, since the incremental movements towards a function system would provide no selectable benefit. These traits could not be selected for, and as such could not have advanced, except by random chance.

At the end of the book, Behe makes his much discussed stab towards intelligent design. He holds this complexity as evidence of the impossibility of the completion of the scientific enterprise. There is a necessity, he claims, of intelligent guidance, to hold the elements in place so that the complex system can form.

I am not equipped to analysis Behe's microbiology. Let us grant that he is in fact correct, and that his explication of these complex systems is accurate. The problems with his work lie not in his science, but in his logic. In fact, it seems to me that his science is a smoke screen, to hide the sloppy logic. By throwing complex chemistry around, he seeks to hide the resounding logical failure.

The logical failure is threefold. First Behe presumes that the current explanatory failure of evolutionary science is a systematic failure, but provides no reason that this is the case. While it may be true that contemporary biology does not have an exact and experimentally verifiable method for the evolution of these systems, it seems unfair to assume that such an explanation is impossible. One hundred years ago, we lacked an explanation for the constancy of speed of light in a vacuum. Seventy years ago, radioactive decay was still a profound mystery. Sixty years ago, genetics seemed the province of randomness, and perhaps even the supernatural. What is it about irreducible complexity that defies these trends? What is it that is so magical that it escapes the relentless march of science?

Second, Behe hinges his argument on a false analogy. He returns again and again, as if through repetition his point might be made true, to the mouse trap. He argues that just as a mousetrap is only functional as long as all the pieces are in place, so do biological systems only function as if all the systems are in place. This fails in two ways. First, biological systems can of course function partially. We regularly see incomplete functionality. Due to a deformation of the lens in my eyes, I require glasses, but even without glasses my eyes function, well enough. Even the simplest light sensor is better than the lack of any sensor. He also ignores alternative uses of a particular biological system. But Behe strides onward, asserting that since we don't understand the way it came to be, it must mean that we can't understand the way it came to be.

Further, the analogy fails because mousetraps are much more simple than biological systems. While Behe finds complexity to be an argument against evolutionary theory, it rather is an argument in its favor. The systems are so complex in fact that we can make no claim to understanding them fully. As such, it seems more likely that, rather than the system being irreducible, we just do not yet understand the ways in which it might be reduced.

Finally, Behe makes a final, and most absurd move, claiming a modern version of the "God of the Gaps". The most significant movement of the enlightenment was the claim that science, and knowledge in general, should not appeal to God to fill in the gaps in human knowledge. It is rightly regarded as a form of intellectual dishonesty, because it invalidates all of the scientific enterprise. If Behe could show some reason why biology is incapable of understanding such complex systems, then perhaps we could take his claim seriously. He fails to do this, claiming only that since we don't understand, we can't understand. Since we can't understand, there must be a supernatural explanation.

But it is the task of science to take seriously the world, without appeal to God. This is what Steven Gould so clearly understood when he spoke of non-overlapping magisterial. The scientific and religious communities are both providing explanations for phenomenon, but the explanations arise from different domains, with different concerns, and cannot be brought into direct dialog. The failure of one cannot be presumed to be the successes of the other.

In summation, Behe fails on three points. 1 - He presumes that a current failure to understand a system amounts to an absolute failure to be able to understand that system. 2 - He commits the fallacy of a false analogy by asserting that a simple system is analogous to a complex system, where the complexity amounts to a qualitative difference, not just a quantitative one. 3 - He cross domains in an impossible way, asserting that the failure of a natural explanation incurs a supernatural explanation, without providing any reason why this should be so.(less)

like 2 likes · see review

Jul 05, 2009 Landon rated it 3 of 5 stars

This is the book that gave the intelligent design movement its life. Behe's classic argument is that at the biochemical level of the cell, scientists are discovering that the machinery of life is incomprehensibly more complex than Darwin could have ever imagined. By looking at the various structures in biological life, Behe argues that some of the structures show signs of design.

His argument centers around the notion that these biological structures are "irreducibly complex." By this he means th...more

like · see review

May 24, 2009 Kessia Reyne rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: school

Here's why I liked this book: When I was a student of human biology and genetics, I noticed that my professors were always talking about the body anthropomorphically. "The cell, knowing it's low on sodium, picks it up from the blood stream." Okay, two problems with this explanation. One, cells don't "know" things because cells don't have minds and they are not rational. Second problem, nobody liked to go into detail about _exactly_ how the cell takes in the sodium. I guess maybe they didn't have...more

like 3 likes · see review

Jul 26, 2011 Jared rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Good reason to read this book: To appreciate the biochemical complexity of life.

Bad reason to read this book: To find absolute evidence for design.

He's no doubt a very intelligent man and certainly creative and inventive with his idea of irreducible complexity. However, he makes many many logical fallacies throughout the book which he surprisingly is aware of as he accuses other arguments of these faults, but somehow cannot see them in his own arguments. He often sounds more like an engineer th...more Good reason to read this book: To appreciate the biochemical complexity of life.

Bad reason to read this book: To find absolute evidence for design.

He's no doubt a very intelligent man and certainly creative and inventive with his idea of irreducible complexity. However, he makes many many logical fallacies throughout the book which he surprisingly is aware of as he accuses other arguments of these faults, but somehow cannot see them in his own arguments. He often sounds more like an engineer than a biochemist with his analogies relating large macroscopic systems (sometimes even requiring human input, decisions) that are obviously irreducibly complex (IC) to very small micro-systems that may or may not be IC. Furthermore, as Dawkins points out, it is possible for an IC system to exist as the result of a previous system that was not IC.

He also loves the fallacy "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" with regard to the current published works on the origins of life. The argument is as such: There is currently no explanation of step by step evolution; therefore, there is no explanation. He also admitted in trial under questioning after being presented with 50+ journals on the evolution of immunity, all of which he claimed to be insufficient, that he hadn't actually read the majority of them. (see Dawkins' "The God Delusion" pp. 156-160 and reference to the court case)

Ultimately, he seems more sneaky with his viewpoints than creationists. He judges evolutionists for not agreeing with his interpretation of what he takes to be unequivocal evidence for design because of a commitment to naturalism, but can't seem to consider that his interpretation or viewpoint might be limited by his proclivity to the existence of God. He doesn't claim to know the origins or identity of the creator (although he is a self-professing Roman Catholic), and he does (apparently) disagree with the creationists' six to ten thousand year-old Earth. He even postulates that a designer could have placed the initial cell on the planet 4.6 billion years ago with all of the necessary genetic material to create all life in it (or at least all the coding needed for the IC systems). So he's found some middle ground and from his writing gives us no reason to believe that he is interested in anything other than evidence and not "holy books or sacred texts."

Overall, it's an interesting read, but will no doubt make you cringe at some point if you have any sort of commitment to science.(less)

like · see review

Mar 19, 2009 Robert rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: science

I had the pleasure of eviscerating this book for a philosophy of science seminar in graduate school. It was suggested that I work up a publishable paper aiming at a more worthy target. My point, which some will think unfair, is that in addition to the author's presumably willful ignorance about the mechanisms of natural selection (he teaches biochemistry at a reputable university), there is a philosophical problem with his approach, viz. that invoking intentional explanations (in terms of reason...more

like 2 likes · see review

Feb 25, 2013 Shea Mastison rated it 1 of 5 stars

Behe's "seminal" work purporting to have discovered a biochemical flaw in evolutionary theory is more of a cultural phenomenon than scientific discovery. A customary glance toward Behe's citations brings up several people who would be considered fringe scientists, or perhaps even pseudo-scientists; yet Behe quotes these people as though they were well respected in their various fields. Assigning scientific credibility to people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories and homeopathic medicine is...more Behe's "seminal" work purporting to have discovered a biochemical flaw in evolutionary theory is more of a cultural phenomenon than scientific discovery. A customary glance toward Behe's citations brings up several people who would be considered fringe scientists, or perhaps even pseudo-scientists; yet Behe quotes these people as though they were well respected in their various fields. Assigning scientific credibility to people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories and homeopathic medicine is irresponsible. Behe also quotes several AIDS denialists, and cancer conspiracists to bolster his claim; showing that these "scientists" don't accept the evolutionary theory.

Further, Behe dishonestly quotes the credible scientists--occasionally going so far as to interrupt sentences with periods that were not in the original statement. These kinds of tactics should heavily damage Behe's central argument before you become familiar with his claims.

Next, he makes several claims about a lack of scientific literature covering evolutionary explanations for biochemical observations. This easily is proven false, just by examining the academic record itself. For anyone curious about a more in depth analysis of all the papers Behe willingly ignored, I would recommend Keith Robison's review.

Behe damages his credibility early in the book, and continues all through out by fudging the evidence, omitting facts, and making almost embarrassing leaps of logic. But perhaps most damning of all, is the fact that Behe has never attempted to have his criticism of descent with modification published in any scientific journal; nor has he attempted to have his ideas about irreducible complexity or intelligent design published.

I'll end this review with a (properly) punctuated quote of my own, and a final thought:

"Publish or perish" is a proverb that academicians take seriously. If you do not publish your work for the rest of the community to evaluate, then you have no business in academia..."

--Michael Behe

We can only regret that Mr. Behe has not more promptly followed his own advice.(less)

like · see review

Apr 04, 2011 Benjamin rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: biology

I'm not sure what to think of the whole ID movement and their arguments. This book is very poorly written and the analogies and jokes are pathetic. I didn't appreciate Behe's frequent references to textbooks, which are practically irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of a scientific theory. The use of textbooks is purely pedagogical (obviously?). I don't like his method of argumentation. He bores you with the patent complexity of biological systems and then arrives at the non-sequeter th...more

like · see review

Oct 02, 2009 Patrik rated it 4 of 5 stars

In this book Behe makes the argument that on a micro-biological scale there is evidence that life was designed and could not have evolved via small successive changes over long periods of time, as Darwin suggests. He suggests that, at a chemical level, the processes are too complex and interdependent and therefore could not have evolved. A few of the examples given are the chemical reactions in the eye that occur to transmit data through the optic nerve, the system of transporting proteins throu...more In this book Behe makes the argument that on a micro-biological scale there is evidence that life was designed and could not have evolved via small successive changes over long periods of time, as Darwin suggests. He suggests that, at a chemical level, the processes are too complex and interdependent and therefore could not have evolved. A few of the examples given are the chemical reactions in the eye that occur to transmit data through the optic nerve, the system of transporting proteins throughout the eukaryotic cell, the chemical process involved in blood clotting, and the chemical process that is required to make just one of the nucleic acids that is used to make DNA.

Obviously there are counter arguments against the theory of irreducible complexity. Take the eye, for example. Because there are many varying degrees of eye complexity found out there then be argued that complex eyes have evolved from simpler eyes. Behe does not try to refute these arguments because he is not against certain aspects of the evolutionary theory. The problem is that the arguments for the evolution of the eye, and that of the other examples he gives in the book, always start with functioning chemical processes that are already in place. What he is concerned with in the eye, at any level of complexity, is how rhodopsin came to be able detect light in the first place and how an ensuing interdependent chain reaction of chemicals could have evolved. The same line of thinking is applied to all the other examples he gives throughout the book. The arguments for the evolution of any sort of complex system always start with functioning chemical processes, and its origin is essentially glossed over with rhetoric. For example, Richard Dawkins, describes the origin of the eukaryotic cell as being more momentous, difficult, and statistically improbable than the origin of life which is itself an extremely improbable event, many orders of magnitude more improbable than we think. So, how did it happen? With a stroke of luck. Which I think is exactly Behe's point. These processes are so extremely difficult and complicated that it would take an immeasurable amount of luck and is more rationally explained by the idea that maybe they were designed.

(less)

like · see review

Mike At the heart of your review is an argument that transcends the evolution vs. ID debate. The argument that you touch on is that of naturalism vs. super...more At the heart of your review is an argument that transcends the evolution vs. ID debate. The argument that you touch on is that of naturalism vs. supernaturalism. While the argument over evolution vs. ID is taken up in this debate. There is nothing about evolution that requires the reading out of God from the origins of life and ID doesn't demand a personal God (or one at all, Behe himself said it could be aliens).

Whether you believe in evolution or ID your commitment to naturalism or supernaturalism is going to determine what you think about the data. So the improbability of the transition to whatever cell to whatever other cell isn't going to convince someone to the opposing camp. They will simply read those slim odds as either chance or God.

The end of your review I think misses the point of the argument for irreducible complexity. The argument is not that the creation of such a life form is so improbable that it must have been designed by something. He is saying that it COULDN'T have originated in any other way.

Ultimately the failure of ID is to provide an alternative to the theory of evolution. It is not enough to point to the holes in evolutionary theory and seek to find the lifeform or system that has existed in it own state from the beginning of time, because those fail to tell us how these lifeforms came about.

Some people like to tell me that Genesis says God's spoke creation into existence, that is HOW it was done. This could be an alternative theory to evolution. You just have to justify how sound wave caused matter to gather in such a way as to create vertebrate animals. I am just telling you that you are going to be hard pressed to make this case based on scientific data. My point being that whatever alternative you offer it must cohere with the natural laws that we have figured out thus far and explain the data we see before us.

The goal of science isn't to figure out timeless truths like God create the world, but HOW nature functions. God's creation of the world has to have some natural element to it and scientist are following the clues backwards to figure out how he did it (they obviously wouldn't phrase it this way but I think it is a helpful way of looking at the scientific endeavor).

Chew on that and tell me what you think.(less)
Oct 06, 2009 04:14pm

Patrik If we believe that God created the universe and everything in it then are we not obligated at some point to invoke the supernatural? Is there not a po...more If we believe that God created the universe and everything in it then are we not obligated at some point to invoke the supernatural? Is there not a point in time where we have to draw a line and say that it could not have happened any other way than that God did it? Maybe Behe is trying to say that the line has to be drawn at the microbiological level when it comes to the evolution of life. And at that point, it becomes supernatural.

Scientists would have us to believe that everything can be explained via natural processes, or naturalism, right? Yet, if we believe that God created life, despite how he may have done it, then at some point we have to believe that science will hit a brick wall and not be able to explain how it occurred naturally. Is the origin of the cell the brick wall that science will never be able to explain through naturalism? Do we have to have a naturalistic explanation of how God, through speaking, could create the cell and cause it to come to life? If it could be explained naturally then it wouldn’t be supernatural. At what point are we allowed to invoke the supernatural? If the answer is never, so that we can meet the requirements of the scientific community and have natural explanations for everything, then there is no need for God to create anything in the first place because it can all occur naturally. Which is exactly the point of the scientist who says there is no God and no need for a God because everything can be explained naturally through evolution. Take Richard Dawkins for example. He claims that evolution naturally explains away the need for a God because all answers to the origin of life can be found through evolution. My point in defending irreducible complexity is that, despite the scientific claim, they CANNOT explain the complexities of life through evolution. If they could, then Dawkins would not have made such a statement about the statistical improbability of the evolution of the eukaryotic cell and the origins of life or the consciousness. How is invoking luck scientific? To simply say that it occurred with luck is not evidence. So does that mean that ID has failed because it does not have an alternative theory that can be naturally explained? What if the alternative theory IS a supernatural explanation? It cannot be invoked in the scientific community, however, because it will be instantly discredited as not having any scientific proof, which is exactly the point. Scientific evidence comes through induction and observation. The point of something being supernatural is that there is no natural explanation for its occurrence and would therefore not have any evidence which can be procured through induction or observation (Take the resurrection of Lazarus for example; Must we be able to naturally explain how Jesus was able to return a body which had been decaying for four days to life? Do we have to be able to explain how the chemical breakdown and decay of the billions of cells in the body had to be reversed and restored to their original living states so as to allow Lazarus to return to life? No, because it can’t be naturally explained. It was supernatural.).

Since there is no scientific evidence to explain the origin of life, or the origin of the universe for that matter, instead of science admitting that it was a divine intervention by God they pose alternative theories like the planet was seed by aliens. Which, in itself does not answer the problem of the origin of life, it just pushes the problem back a step. It may answer the question of how did life originate on Earth but it does not explain the origins of the alien species that seeded the planet.

I would argue that science IS trying to explain the origins of life and the origins of the universe. If, through natural processes, science was able to explain the origin of life and the origin of the universe then it would be able to claim that there is no need for God. If they weren’t concerned with these things then why would they be trying to coax non-living chemicals to life (and if, by the way, they did coax chemicals to life would that be a natural explanation or that of intelligent influence?) or be trying to explain the origin of the universe? There are many theories out there that try to explain the origin of the universe. To try and rationalize away the fact that the universe began, that is that it came into existence out of nothing as proven by Einstein’s theory of relativity, scientists have postulated about multiverses and parallel universes and the forever expanding and contracting universe. Where is the scientific evidence derived through induction and observation for any of these theories? I think it is just an attempt to try to get around the need to at some point have to invoke the supernatural.

In conclusion, Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity states that life could not have evolved at the chemical level. If it could not have evolved then one of the explanations is that it occurred supernaturally. If it was indeed supernatural, then we are going to be hard pressed to find a natural explanation that will satisfy the scientific community, which would defeat the purpose of it being supernatural in the first place. If the origin of life is supernatural then just like Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead it cannot be explained naturally.
(less)
Oct 19, 2009 02:12pm

Mike You are right we have to draw the line somewhere but Behe has drawn it erroneously. His arguments have been debunked. He chose to draw a line in the s...more You are right we have to draw the line somewhere but Behe has drawn it erroneously. His arguments have been debunked. He chose to draw a line in the sand where the waves have already passed.

You are also right about your Lazarus example, if he was in a coma, sleeping or some other naturalistic explanation than Jesus wasn't a miracle worker but simply a man. But Christians always insist on a supernatural reading of the story and Jesus remains God.

In that same way no matter what science finds to be the case, to Christians there will always be a supernatural explanation. If evolution occurred over billion of years, science can't say God played no part in it, they can only assume he didn't. They step out of their field the second that pass judgment of our interpretation of the facts. If they insist God does not exist then that is a metaphysical statement beyond the bounds of science.

The same is true of the expanding universe. This is a pretty good indication that the universe had a beginning, which christians will always interpret as part of God's creation act.

The improbability of the formation of a certain kind of cell is an observation of what is the case. For Dawkins it can't be anything but luck. For christians it is obviously God, regardless of its spontaneous existence or its gradual formation through "natural" selection.

This way of interpreting the facts is how christians exist in a fallen world. When "fortune smiles on us" or "the stars align" or "we get lucky" we know these instances to be God's grace and providence in our lives. Nothing about these events lend themselves to an automatic interpretation of God. God doesn't leave a note when he provides for us. He leaves us with the ability to give thanks or not.

The world, existence, life provides the data, christians read what we are given in light of a God who loves us.

No matter what science finds out about the origins of life or the existence of the multi-verse it is irrelevant because each new discovery is just another insight into the mind of God for us. (less)
Oct 25, 2009 09:01pm

May 23, 2012 John rated it 4 of 5 stars

DARWIN'S BLACK BOX is a devastating attack on traditional Darwinian evolution from a biochemical perspective, a challenge that scientists have still been unable to address during the fifteen years since the book was first published (although Darwinian evolutionists, despite their general disdain for matters of "faith," have complete faith that the solutions will be forthcoming). In places, it's way too technical for me to follow, but the general argument comes through loud and clear. It's well-w...more

like 1 like · see review

Sep 21, 2008 Pattie rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is an amazing, scientific explanation of the intricacies of design revealed in the microscopic world that scream, "This is no accident!" Darwin would be the first to repent after reading this. Just the chapter on blood clotting alone is worth getting the book-an excellent springboard for faith sharing.

like 4 likes · see review

Sep 03, 2010 the review man rated it 3 of 5 stars

Darwin's Black Box is Michael J. Behe's answer to evolution: irreducible complexity. I'm not going to summarize the book (mostly because I'm not a biochemist), but I found the chapter on blood clotting particularly intriguing. Again, I don't think I'm qualified to determine whether irreducible complexity is a hindrance to the theory of evolution, but it certainly was food for thought.

I know that many have disputed Behe's arguments (especially the mousetrap analogy), but in interviews, Behe seems...more

like · see review

Aug 11, 2011 Josi added it · review of another edition

This book is clear and concise with its ideas, elaborating and condensing where necessary to ideally get the point across. Michael Behe very professionally conducts his explanation of proof for intelligent design in a way that, while fascinatingly breathtaking to a science student like myself, is also crystal clear to the layman. Add on the fact that I managed to convince a stubborn Darwinist nearly forty years my senior to read this, and you realize this book's potential. This is in no way a "n...more

like · see review

May 02, 2009 Justin rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: roughly-math-science

I don't have the background to properly comment on the science, but it was mostly clearly presented. The solutions to the irreducible complexity issue haven't quite sat right with me, but they're neither as illogical or damning as Behe thinks they are. Behe does do a good job presenting his arguments both against Darwin and for intelligent design on the basis of science and not religion or philosophy.

Behe presents a strong case, but he makes a couple fundamental errors. First, simply because som...more

like 1 like · see review

Dec 07, 2009 Ammon rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is a must read for any serious student of the evolution/intelligent-design debate. It lays out a clear, respectful and scientific argument against certain aspects of modern evolutionary theory. It does give clear credit to evolutionary thinking for the many contributions its proponents have made, but points out areas in biochemistry where an evolutionary approach is completely untenable. Behe also summarizes the history of the scientific debate on the question of origins, and concludes with...more

like 2 likes · see review

Jan 17, 2012 Tim and Popie Stafford rated it 3 of 5 stars

Well written. Basic argument is the life's extraordinary complexity goes all the way down to the molecular level. Complexity is such that no evolutionary process could have developed it. This is Paley's argument about the watch, updated. Problems are: few biologists see it his way. And, it's asserting a negative: we can't see how it could have happened, it appears clearly impossible, thus it must be Intelligent Design. He's possibly right, but from a science point of view, so what? It doesn't ge...more

like · see review

Oct 15, 2010 Zarakoda rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction, favorites

As a person always desiring to be knowledgeable on controversial issues, I obviously have found the evolution/creation debate particularly necessary to research. After all, the implications of such conclusions are enormous. Literature supporting either side, however, quickly disenchants me. An evolutionist's paper lauds the same examples over and over and over in rather vague terms and use circuitous arguments to say "we can see natural selection through this which happens because of naural sele...more As a person always desiring to be knowledgeable on controversial issues, I obviously have found the evolution/creation debate particularly necessary to research. After all, the implications of such conclusions are enormous. Literature supporting either side, however, quickly disenchants me. An evolutionist's paper lauds the same examples over and over and over in rather vague terms and use circuitous arguments to say "we can see natural selection through this which happens because of naural selection." Someone arguing for creationism might ignore scientific fact or AGAIN just focus on a few repetitive examples. Both side manipulate statistics and facts, and I leave rather peeved at a lack of unbiased sources.

This subject is too emotionally important to ever find an unbiased source. I understand that. However, something LESS biased and LESS extreme would be completely welcome. Is there someone out there to merely describe the facts and let readers to personal conclusions?

Michael Behe's book has an agenda to promote intelligent design - nevertheless, instead of arguing through vague abstractions, attention to only half the details, or purely emotional venting, he uses concrete scientific examples to demonstrate his point. His thesis is extremely simple - that irredusibly complex systems cannot result from Darwinian evolution - and is often repeated to the point of bricks falling on my head, but it is firmly backed up. I will not say to what degree I agree or disagree with his arguments. But the manner in which he, though arguing for intelligent design, still focused on LOGOS was highly refreshing. Rather than taking a defensive argument saying, "Evolution is stupid," he stated much more on the offensive, "Evolution can never explain this." He argues science with science, and tries to separate that from religion. Thank you!

I would highly recommend this book to any reader desiring information about evolution/intelligent design, and even recommend it to those who think they have it all "figured out".(less)

like · see review

title link	preview: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
avg rating	preview: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Goodreads rating: 3.49 (1526 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49038.Darwin_s_Black_Box?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1347317931l/49038.jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49038.Darwin_s_Black_Box?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe[/url]

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (12)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Michael J. Behe

Books by Michael J. Behe

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Darwin's Black Bo...

Quotes from Darwin's Black Box: Th...