Scan barcode
knapikg's review against another edition
2.0
Good logical facts that jump to an illogical conclusion
lindzieh's review against another edition
2.0
I am giving this 2 stars because I had a hard time reading this book. I don't mean I had a hard time understanding the book as my degree is in Microbiology. I feel like he simplified everything too much. It was more confusing to me for molecules/pathways/etc to not have proper names. He was trying to write to an audience who didn't have any background in science.
As far as his argument, I felt like it was very redundant throughout the book. Yes, we understand that from a biochemical stand point, evolution probably didn't work. I just got tired of reading this over and over and over.
He did make very good points from a biochemist's point of view of why evolution really couldn't work because of our immune system, our blood clotting system and how bacterial flagella work. This is about the only part I found interesting. I got kind of lost in the last part of the book when he was talking about intelligent design. I felt like he took a lot of liberty to jump all over the place with that topic. I had a hard time staying focused at the end. I read "The Language of God" that was making references to this book so I figured I better read it.
Overall, interesting read and interesting ideas.
As far as his argument, I felt like it was very redundant throughout the book. Yes, we understand that from a biochemical stand point, evolution probably didn't work. I just got tired of reading this over and over and over.
He did make very good points from a biochemist's point of view of why evolution really couldn't work because of our immune system, our blood clotting system and how bacterial flagella work. This is about the only part I found interesting. I got kind of lost in the last part of the book when he was talking about intelligent design. I felt like he took a lot of liberty to jump all over the place with that topic. I had a hard time staying focused at the end. I read "The Language of God" that was making references to this book so I figured I better read it.
Overall, interesting read and interesting ideas.
lapingveno's review against another edition
3.0
This is a great book illustrating the strength of the ID argument(s) based on the presence of irreducible complexity at the microscopic level.
I deduct one point for the author's willingness to entertain certain beliefs (which I won't get into specifically).
I deduct another point for this book's WALLS of technical text about exactly how the irreducibly complex systems work. Behe does a good job using analogies, but he loses me (and, I presume, the average reader) when he waxes microbiological. In fairness, he does warn the reader when those passages are coming, but it doesn't change the fact that a third of the book is inscrutable to the layman as a result. Those passages are important to his argument--I'm not denying that--but they certainly do not make for pleasurable reading!
I deduct one point for the author's willingness to entertain certain beliefs (which I won't get into specifically).
I deduct another point for this book's WALLS of technical text about exactly how the irreducibly complex systems work. Behe does a good job using analogies, but he loses me (and, I presume, the average reader) when he waxes microbiological. In fairness, he does warn the reader when those passages are coming, but it doesn't change the fact that a third of the book is inscrutable to the layman as a result. Those passages are important to his argument--I'm not denying that--but they certainly do not make for pleasurable reading!
agruenbaum's review against another edition
4.0
The book is about technical material. It was explained well, but that doesn’t mean I understood it all. Let the haters answer the problems with evolution. The haters don’t have explanations. They only have noise!
booknerd_therapist's review against another edition
3.0
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.
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.
leelulah's review against another edition
3.0
Not entirely convincing, but sure it does at least engage with adversaries nicely, and poses some gaps of evolutionary theory that one would have to ponder about. How likely co-option is? How come that even when we argue that bodies of animals are purposefully arranged, this can be a result of "random mutations"= . Behe provides a balanced view where evolution can explain some things to a level, you won't find a fundamentalist going against Church Tradition in his Bible readings. But then again, he mostly points out the hostility to religion rather than go on and on about exegesis, while showing why ID isn't necessarily a confessional standpoint. Seems more of a philosophical objection to neodarwinian evolutionists' desperate methodological materialism.
tristaanogre's review against another edition
4.0
One of the chosen battlefields of the 20th and 21st century for Christians in the west is on the apparent conflict between atheistic Darwinian evolution and literal 6 day Creationism. A large amount of words, both ink and electronic, have been spent in these discussions and arguments. In the middle of these arguments are some moderate people who choose to allow God to be the "who" behind the formation and creation of the universe and allow science the ability to describe the "how" of it, in varying degrees.
One part of this dialog is the idea of "intelligent design". This part gives the general premise that there is complexity in nature that gives evidence that some sort of intelligence is behind the design of things. When it comes to organisms on the macro level, this is difficult to defend as there are valid arguments from the more strict Darwinian perspective that these macro changes are possible through natural selection.
Michael J. Behe, however, takes things to a bio-molecular level and uses 5 examples from molecular biology to give a defense for intelligent design. I'll say, right up front, that Behe's arguments are very well worked out, coherent, and knowledgeable. They would have to be since he is a professor of Biochemistry himself at Lehigh University.
One of the points Behe makes in the early part of the book that gives support for some of the arguments for macro-evolution is an explanation of someone crossing from one side of the Grand Canyon to the other by jumping. We don't witness the jumps, but the explanation that the jumper gives is that they crossed the canyon in incremental 10 foot jumps from butte to butte where the buttes appear and disappear. It is plausible and possible, given a long period of time, for someone to do that. We cannot prove it nor disprove it, so the plausibility exists.
But Behe points out that this argument depends upon the ability to reason out and rationalize those incremental steps, making the assumption that the organism, in the intermediate steps, is viable and survivable. This may be possible at the macro level but, on the micro level, this is not quite so easy to show. It comes down to the idea of irreducible complexity (described in detail on pages 39-45). This is the idea that a mechanism that is irreducibly complex is composed of several interrelated components, combined to achieve a basic function where the removal of any one of those components would cause the mechanism or system to cease to function.
Using the examples of bacterial flagella and the cilia of certain cells in larger organisms, the complex system for mammalian blood clotting, intracellular transmembrane and vesicular transport, the complexity of the chemistry of the anti-body immuno-response, and the complex synthesis of cellular nucleotides, Behe argues a rather well constructed case for design at the bio-molecular level. In each of these 5 systems, to assume incrememtal genetic mutations would create the various steps and still allow a viable system to exist, goes against the presented concept of irreducible complexity. I'm no bio-chemist, but it seems that Behe has put out there an excellent challenge to atheistic Darwinianism that demands some sort of answer.
And Behe even went through and explored to see if anyone else has attempted, from biomolecular chemistry, to apply that science towards explaining how Darwinian evolution can account for the described systems. He came up with nothing. This is not to say that no answer cannot be found, but more that there is a chauvinism in the scientific community to maintain their status quo and perspective because to branch out into either supporting or arguing against intelligent design does not work well within a community dictated by "publish or perish".
If you could not tell, I really appreciate Behe's intelligent design argument. Note that Behe does not bring religion into the conversation in any matter of dogmatic faith or anything. However, he does point out that, as much as science wants to compartmentalize thought and keep science "pure" and not delve into the supernatural, this is something to be done with caution. We don't want to set science aside and just wholesale explain things as "God did it miraculously". But at the same time, we shouldn't, especially if there is evidence of some sort of intelligence, discount that there are aspects of our universe (human self-awareness and other psychological matters) that seem to be beyond what science is capable of explaining. Intelligent design does not have to be religiously dogmatic. But it is a viable explanation according to Behe and, if it shows up through scientific investigation, it should not be dismissed.
Now, I will say that, in some sense, Behe's book came across as condescending. I found myself agreeing with Behe's hypothesis and explanations. But I couldn't help but think that he was patronizing and condescending towards folks who do not accept intelligent design. This is his only flaw, I feel, in the book. If he wants to engage in the kinds of conversations he wishes to participate in, a condescension is not the way to go forward.
The big takeaway? If you are interested in a rational, logical, well-thought-out primer as to how science, specifically biomolecular chemistry, can point to the very likely possiblity of an intelligent source to the ordering of the universe, this is a great book. He does not dismiss outright Darwin's theories of natural selction. Nor does he argue for a more fundamentalist view of Creation. Instead, he walks a delicate balancing act of maintaining a scientific credibility within his field of speciality while pointing out how his chose field describes what we see while being inadequate as to how the things came to be without some sort of intelligence designing the complex systems. Agree with him or not, I think any scientifically minded person interested in the debate of the origins of life on this planet should read this book.
One part of this dialog is the idea of "intelligent design". This part gives the general premise that there is complexity in nature that gives evidence that some sort of intelligence is behind the design of things. When it comes to organisms on the macro level, this is difficult to defend as there are valid arguments from the more strict Darwinian perspective that these macro changes are possible through natural selection.
Michael J. Behe, however, takes things to a bio-molecular level and uses 5 examples from molecular biology to give a defense for intelligent design. I'll say, right up front, that Behe's arguments are very well worked out, coherent, and knowledgeable. They would have to be since he is a professor of Biochemistry himself at Lehigh University.
One of the points Behe makes in the early part of the book that gives support for some of the arguments for macro-evolution is an explanation of someone crossing from one side of the Grand Canyon to the other by jumping. We don't witness the jumps, but the explanation that the jumper gives is that they crossed the canyon in incremental 10 foot jumps from butte to butte where the buttes appear and disappear. It is plausible and possible, given a long period of time, for someone to do that. We cannot prove it nor disprove it, so the plausibility exists.
But Behe points out that this argument depends upon the ability to reason out and rationalize those incremental steps, making the assumption that the organism, in the intermediate steps, is viable and survivable. This may be possible at the macro level but, on the micro level, this is not quite so easy to show. It comes down to the idea of irreducible complexity (described in detail on pages 39-45). This is the idea that a mechanism that is irreducibly complex is composed of several interrelated components, combined to achieve a basic function where the removal of any one of those components would cause the mechanism or system to cease to function.
Using the examples of bacterial flagella and the cilia of certain cells in larger organisms, the complex system for mammalian blood clotting, intracellular transmembrane and vesicular transport, the complexity of the chemistry of the anti-body immuno-response, and the complex synthesis of cellular nucleotides, Behe argues a rather well constructed case for design at the bio-molecular level. In each of these 5 systems, to assume incrememtal genetic mutations would create the various steps and still allow a viable system to exist, goes against the presented concept of irreducible complexity. I'm no bio-chemist, but it seems that Behe has put out there an excellent challenge to atheistic Darwinianism that demands some sort of answer.
And Behe even went through and explored to see if anyone else has attempted, from biomolecular chemistry, to apply that science towards explaining how Darwinian evolution can account for the described systems. He came up with nothing. This is not to say that no answer cannot be found, but more that there is a chauvinism in the scientific community to maintain their status quo and perspective because to branch out into either supporting or arguing against intelligent design does not work well within a community dictated by "publish or perish".
If you could not tell, I really appreciate Behe's intelligent design argument. Note that Behe does not bring religion into the conversation in any matter of dogmatic faith or anything. However, he does point out that, as much as science wants to compartmentalize thought and keep science "pure" and not delve into the supernatural, this is something to be done with caution. We don't want to set science aside and just wholesale explain things as "God did it miraculously". But at the same time, we shouldn't, especially if there is evidence of some sort of intelligence, discount that there are aspects of our universe (human self-awareness and other psychological matters) that seem to be beyond what science is capable of explaining. Intelligent design does not have to be religiously dogmatic. But it is a viable explanation according to Behe and, if it shows up through scientific investigation, it should not be dismissed.
Now, I will say that, in some sense, Behe's book came across as condescending. I found myself agreeing with Behe's hypothesis and explanations. But I couldn't help but think that he was patronizing and condescending towards folks who do not accept intelligent design. This is his only flaw, I feel, in the book. If he wants to engage in the kinds of conversations he wishes to participate in, a condescension is not the way to go forward.
The big takeaway? If you are interested in a rational, logical, well-thought-out primer as to how science, specifically biomolecular chemistry, can point to the very likely possiblity of an intelligent source to the ordering of the universe, this is a great book. He does not dismiss outright Darwin's theories of natural selction. Nor does he argue for a more fundamentalist view of Creation. Instead, he walks a delicate balancing act of maintaining a scientific credibility within his field of speciality while pointing out how his chose field describes what we see while being inadequate as to how the things came to be without some sort of intelligence designing the complex systems. Agree with him or not, I think any scientifically minded person interested in the debate of the origins of life on this planet should read this book.