Scan barcode
A review by rachelb36
Darwin Devolves: The New Science about DNA That Challenges Evolution by Michael J. Behe
2.0
Behe is an advocate of intelligent design. He goes out of his way to explain that intelligent design is not a synonym for creationism. He believes in evolutionary theory, just not by "Darwinian mechanisms" - that is, not by random mutation and natural selection. He believes the earth is billions of years old (there were a few references in the book to this that were left un-cited, which was annoying).
I also simply disagree with his beliefs. I believe in a literal six-day creation (by God), and a young earth. While much of the information in his book regarding DNA was really interesting, none of it could prove that the evolutionary theory - by any means - is true. Granted, he wasn't really arguing that in this book. So I think that he did just fine with showing that it's not possible for random mutation and natural selection to have played a part in creating the world, but the book still didn't hold enough truth in it for me to rate it higher.
I did like one more thing he said:
It's critical to keep in mind that the concept of purposeful design is logically entirely separate from the idea of common descent - the idea that all organisms living today are descended from organisms that lived in the distant past. Some religious groups are opposed in principle to the idea of common descent. I am not... I think the evidence supporting descent is strong, and I have no reason to doubt it... the design argument here is not that one higher [than family] category cannot descend from another through intermediates. Rather, the argument is that one higher category cannot descend from another by means of an unplanned process such as Darwin's mechanism. (p 157, emphasis original)I learned a few things but, while Behe claimed to write this book so it would be accessible to as many people as possible, I am here to declare that it is too technical for many readers. I like science, biology in particular, and I had a hard time with all the scientific terms and such.
I also simply disagree with his beliefs. I believe in a literal six-day creation (by God), and a young earth. While much of the information in his book regarding DNA was really interesting, none of it could prove that the evolutionary theory - by any means - is true. Granted, he wasn't really arguing that in this book. So I think that he did just fine with showing that it's not possible for random mutation and natural selection to have played a part in creating the world, but the book still didn't hold enough truth in it for me to rate it higher.
I did like one more thing he said:
Gratuitous affirmations of a dominant theory can mesmerize the unwary. They lull people into assuming that objectively difficult problems don't really matter. That they've been solved already. Or will be solved soon. Or are unimportant. Or something. They actively distract readers from noticing an idea's shortcomings. "Of course," students are effectively prompted, "everyone knows what happened here - right? You'd be blind not to see it - right?" But the complacency isn't the fruit of data or experiments. It comes from the powerful social force of everyone in the group nodding back, "Of course!" (p 25)