Scan barcode
A review by tristaanogre
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe
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.