| Michael J. Behe’s “Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” |
Page Contents: |
| |
| Summary Full Review Below | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Book Reviewed | Our Rating | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Highly Recommended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
| |
A review of Michael Behe’s “Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” by | ||
| | The idea that all life on earth developed gradually (evolved) over millions of years from a few common ancestors was not a novel thesis when Charles Darwin began his research in 1836. From those studies, he postulated several related theories to explain the diversity as well as commonality of life:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.Thus, he presents a “black box” to allow for the falsification of his theories. In science, a black box is a machine or system that functions, but it's workings are completely mysterious. Such mystery may be due to the inability of the observer to see inside it or simply result from the ability to comprehend it. For Darwin and his 19th century contemporaries the cell was a black box. The cell was simply too small in the absence of essential tools to thoroughly investigate it (microscopes of that time were still very crude) Thus, many scientists of that day thought of the cell in simplistic terms, like microscopic jelly. Since that time, science has demonstrated that the cell is an extremely complex system of biochemical pathways and machines. Within the scientific community, any debate over the macroevolutionary model has generally been confined to the details of the model. As such, strong challenges to the mechanism of evolution have been scarce. However, that is precisely the challenge that Michael Behe has accepted. Dr. Behe, an associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, makes two points in Darwin's Black Box: first, that science is unable to explain the phenomena of “irreducably complex” systems at the biochemical level of biological organization; second, he concludes from inductive logical arguments that such systems are best explained as the result of deliberate intelligent design. From a scientific perspective, Behe presents a composite theory that cannont be falsified--an airtight theory that cannot be proven wrong--around which his critics will undoubtedly rally. Macroevolution, as Dr. Behe points out, seems to be a very logical theory when the anatomical simalarities between species are examined. He writes that “I find the idea of common descent...fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” [DBB.MB, p. 5 ] However, he argues that Darwin's mechanistic model to also describe sub-cellular evolution collapses under the weight of 20th century scientific knowledge: “Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involve staggeringly complicated biochemical processes.” [DBB.MB, p. 22] Moreover, Behe also addresses what may be referred to as a Neo-Darwinian model--a synthesis of the interdisciplinary findings of molecular genetics, embryology, biogeography, paleontology, and anatomy that postualte explaining the diversity of life as resulting from the survival of hereditary variations that arise, by chance, at the chemical level of biological organization: genes. Despite the interdisciplinary assimilation of ideas, Neo-Darwinists have virtually no evidence to support their conclusions. As such, in the absence of testable evidence Behe asserts that “molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority” [DBB.MB, p. 185].It is important to note for the Christian reader that Behe does not argue against biological evolution, but only the presuppositions of Darwinism that life began naturally: “Darwin's mechanism [natural selection]...might explain many things, [but not] molecular life.” Behe's answer to Darwin's “numerous, successive, slight modifications” is: any system that is irreducibly complex. The concept of irreducible complexity: a single system of interacting parts that cease to function when any one part is removed, is the crux of Behe's thesis. He does a masterful job in five chapters of very lively prose combined with vivid illustrations describing different types of irreducible complexity:
Dr. Behe does a masterful job presenting his thesis of irreducibly complex systems that cannot be explained with a Darwinian model. Further, he rejects Gould's punctuated equillibrium, Dawkins' blind watchmaker, Kauffman's complexity theory, Margulis' symbiosis, and Crick's extra-terrestrial seeding to account for his thesis. Since the scientific method is concerned only with investigating and explaining the phenomenon of the natural universe, there is an underlying priori philosophical committment to materialism with the scientific community. It is here that Behe departs from his colleagues and the scientific method to present (not very cogently in this writers opinion) a teleological or intelligent design argument. The classic Christian teleological argument may be formulated as:
Dr. Behe identifies himself as a theist (Roman Catholic), but he notes that he is not a creationist. He doesn't have any a priori theological objections for life beginning by a completely natural process. Such a position is not contradictory to Catholic teaching, but will leave many traditional Bible believing evangelicals questioning to the strength of his argument for design. Yet he does in fact play a major role in the emerging “intelligent design movement” that offers theists alternatives to the “Young-Earth” creationist model postulated by the Institute for Creation Research. Indeed, Dr. Behe was a major speaker at Bioloa University's November 1996 “Mere Creation: Reclaiming the Book of Nature Conference on Design and Origins.” Behe is very careful to limit his own discussion to the data itself. With such a tight focus on scientific data he must treat philosophical and historical issues gingerly. Thus, he denies that from design one can infer the existence of the Christian God and so departs from the classic teleological argument. In his words, “inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer.” He offers only that a design candidate may be selected based on theological or philosophical grounds, but not on a scientific basis. On the surface, such statements can leave the bible believing Christain shaking their heads in confusion: “Does he believe in the God of the Bible as the designer or nor?” But, to this reviewer, Behe has embarked on a path of revealing crucial scientific information that is not widely reported becuase it does not fit the materialistic presuppositions of his peers. In a sense Behe is advocating a pardigm shift in science that is perhaps best described by echoing the thoughts of Phillip E. Johnson (Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance); i.e., one that separates the philosophies of materialistism and naturalism from empirical science...a science that considers only its data, but is careful to consider alternative explanations as well...one that is not ruled by philosophical or theistic agendas...a science that does not allow its investigators to believe what they want to believe; in short, scientists that do not attempt to fool themselves and the public. In that vein Behe has blazed a well marked trail. In conclusion, this book is recommended as very enlightening reading for Christians who are curious about the facts of cutting-edge biological inquiry at the sub-cellular level. Behe's prose and ability to communicate complex technical concepts and knowledge are excellent. |