Biochemical Evolution or Intelligent Design?
a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49..." style="float: left; padding-right: 20px">
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Behe's book is not one to read while lazing on the beach, as you can tell by how long it has taken me to read it. Although it is scientific and many of the terms are far beyond my experience, Behe does a commendable job of simplifying and illustrating complex ideas and facts.
Behe's basic thesis is that although Darwin's theory has virtually triumphed everywhere, yet it explains only those jumps in development that were visible at the time of Darwin. Since then discoveries of cells, atomic and subatomic elements, and an ever more infintesimally minute universe creates enormous difficulties for evolutions's basic mechanism.
The astonishing complexity of subcellular organic structures that compose; for example, the eye, the bodily clotting mechanism, the transport system between cells, make the possibility that these evolved by chance through natural selection unbelievable. There is no satisfactory evolutionary mechanism to explain these structures.
There is something irreducibly complex about most biological systems. they couldn't have just happened by the random interaction of chemical processes because to work at all, each system must be complete.
This is a challenging book, a book that has been maligned for at least a decade, and in reading the reviews about it, I see that it is still maligned. But why? For the conclusions not for the arguments. A neutral person who reads this book should honestly be able to admit that in the overwhelming appearance of design in all things, the onus of proof rests with those who seek to refute intelligent design.
Behe spends eleven packed chapters and appendices painstakingly outlining the incredible complexity of biochemical systems. Admittedly, even though I had university organic chemistry, much is over my head--and that admission will probably be enough to give the detractors of Behe more fuel.
In summary he says in chap 9, “The impotence of Darwinian theory in accounting for the molecular basis of life is evident not only from the analyses in this book, but also from the complete absence in the professional scientific literature of any detailed models by which complex biochemical systems could have been produced, as shown in Chapter 8. In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed. No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Acacemy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner—no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision or blood clotting or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion. But we are here. Plants and animals are here. The complex systems are here. All these things got here somehow: if not in a Darwinian fashion, then how?” p. 187
Even a 10,000 word supposedly scientific paper did not explain evolutionary processes but rather declared them factual. The scientific community, by and large, professedly unbiased, denigrates any serious attempt to grapple with the appearance of design that does not strengthen evolutionary presuppositions. Why unless they have an axe to grind?
The irreducible complexity of biological systems renders it preposterous to think that they could have evolved gradually. Thus one theory postulated for sudden development is through two then more cells being joined together in a symbiotic relationship that later becomes one working system. But both must have been already functioning. How did they start functioning?
Another postulates development through math complexity theory found in understanding computer systems. But!
Basically, the book shows the evidence of intelligent design on the most microscopic of levels. Concluding that beings evidence intelligent design comes not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs but from the data--the purposeful arrangement of parts and the irreducible complexity of biological systems.
Strangely, that stalwart of evolution and atheism, Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, says that biology is the study of things that appear designed. “He insists that the appearance of design, which he ascribes to natural selection, is overwhelming.” (p. 264) He calls it an illusion...an appearance...but where is the scientific explanation?
A recommended, but tough book.
View all my reviews
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. BeheMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
Behe's book is not one to read while lazing on the beach, as you can tell by how long it has taken me to read it. Although it is scientific and many of the terms are far beyond my experience, Behe does a commendable job of simplifying and illustrating complex ideas and facts.
Behe's basic thesis is that although Darwin's theory has virtually triumphed everywhere, yet it explains only those jumps in development that were visible at the time of Darwin. Since then discoveries of cells, atomic and subatomic elements, and an ever more infintesimally minute universe creates enormous difficulties for evolutions's basic mechanism.
The astonishing complexity of subcellular organic structures that compose; for example, the eye, the bodily clotting mechanism, the transport system between cells, make the possibility that these evolved by chance through natural selection unbelievable. There is no satisfactory evolutionary mechanism to explain these structures.
There is something irreducibly complex about most biological systems. they couldn't have just happened by the random interaction of chemical processes because to work at all, each system must be complete.
This is a challenging book, a book that has been maligned for at least a decade, and in reading the reviews about it, I see that it is still maligned. But why? For the conclusions not for the arguments. A neutral person who reads this book should honestly be able to admit that in the overwhelming appearance of design in all things, the onus of proof rests with those who seek to refute intelligent design.
Behe spends eleven packed chapters and appendices painstakingly outlining the incredible complexity of biochemical systems. Admittedly, even though I had university organic chemistry, much is over my head--and that admission will probably be enough to give the detractors of Behe more fuel.
In summary he says in chap 9, “The impotence of Darwinian theory in accounting for the molecular basis of life is evident not only from the analyses in this book, but also from the complete absence in the professional scientific literature of any detailed models by which complex biochemical systems could have been produced, as shown in Chapter 8. In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed. No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Acacemy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner—no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision or blood clotting or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion. But we are here. Plants and animals are here. The complex systems are here. All these things got here somehow: if not in a Darwinian fashion, then how?” p. 187
Even a 10,000 word supposedly scientific paper did not explain evolutionary processes but rather declared them factual. The scientific community, by and large, professedly unbiased, denigrates any serious attempt to grapple with the appearance of design that does not strengthen evolutionary presuppositions. Why unless they have an axe to grind?
The irreducible complexity of biological systems renders it preposterous to think that they could have evolved gradually. Thus one theory postulated for sudden development is through two then more cells being joined together in a symbiotic relationship that later becomes one working system. But both must have been already functioning. How did they start functioning?
Another postulates development through math complexity theory found in understanding computer systems. But!
Basically, the book shows the evidence of intelligent design on the most microscopic of levels. Concluding that beings evidence intelligent design comes not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs but from the data--the purposeful arrangement of parts and the irreducible complexity of biological systems.
Strangely, that stalwart of evolution and atheism, Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, says that biology is the study of things that appear designed. “He insists that the appearance of design, which he ascribes to natural selection, is overwhelming.” (p. 264) He calls it an illusion...an appearance...but where is the scientific explanation?
A recommended, but tough book.
View all my reviews
date
newest »
newest »
Good comments Diana that ring a bell with me as well. You'll probably find the book easier than I did given that you've done a lot of reading in this field. I tend to be a bit too scatter-gun in my reading sometimes. Eric
Also, the scientific community seems to always talk and write as if organisms somehow control their evolution, choosing certain traits because the traits will improve the gene pool. My question; how would an organism, for example, an animal, a flower, an insect, know what to choose, or how to choose, or even have the ability to choose. Plants don't choose. Another "fact" touted by evolutionists is the idea that evolution has a progression "upwards" or "forwards," ie, towards a more complex and more "intelligent" organism. This is written about in the evolution of man, that once the homo genus began to walk upright he/it/they couldn't possibly then return to quadripedalism because that would be a step "backwards." Yet the argument is always that an organism adapts. If a species of homo found quadripedalism was more adaptive why not "revert" to it. Again, according to evolutionary theory it's about accidents that then benefit the species somehow, not about choices, yet the idea of choice is always there.
Just saying.
This pushes a button on me. Guess you got that.
I'd like to try this book, even though I don't have a university education (but I'm a registered nurse). I've done a lot of reading about this, on both sides of the fence, the evolutionist side and the intelligent design side. I've looked for anyone to show how complex organisms or systems could make the leap to a different complex organism or system, or an explanation of why the scientific community believes evolution "drives" towards the more complex, the less "primitive." Seems to me viruses are way more adaptive than most complex organisms.