Call number
575BEH
Status
Available
Call number
Pages
307
Description
"Virtually all serious scientists accept the truth of Darwin's theory of evolution. While the fight for its acceptance has been a long and difficult one, after a century the battle is over. Biologists are now confident that their remaining questions, such as how life on Earth began, or how the Cambrian explosion could have produced so many new species in such a short time, will be found to have Darwinian answers. They, like most of the rest of us, accept Darwin's theory to be true." "But should we? What would happen if we found something that radically challenged the now-accepted wisdom? As Behe engagingly demonstrates, using the examples of vision, blood-clotting, cellular transport, and more, the biochemical world comprises an arsenal of chemical machines, made up of finely calibrated, interdependent parts. For Darwinian evolution to be true, there must have been a series of mutations, each of which produced its own working machine, that led to the complexity we can now see. The more complex and interdependent each machine's parts are shown to be, the harder it is to envision Darwin's gradualistic paths." "Michael Behe is not a creationist. He believes in the scientific method, and he does not look to religious dogma for answers to these questions. But he argues persuasively that biochemical machines must have been designed - either by God, or by some other higher intelligence. For decades science has been frustrated, trying to reconcile the astonishing discoveries of modern biochemistry to a nineteenth-century theory that cannot accommodate them. With the publication of Darwin's Black Box, it is time for scientists to allow themselves to consider exciting new possibilities, and for the rest of us to watch closely."--BOOK JACKET.Title Summary field provided by Blackwell North America, Inc. All Rights Reserved… (more)
Publication
Free Press (1996) 307 pages
Original publication date
1996
Collection
User reviews
LibraryThing member chrisadami
This book should really be classified under fiction.
LibraryThing member miketroll
This promised to be an informed critique of Darwinist theory from the viewpoint of a trained biochemist. Behe goes straight for the jugular by claiming that Darwinian evolutionary theory is plain wrong; it fails to explain what is happening at the molecular level. Behe's analogy is an explanation
Later I rediscovered Behe as a recurrent target of censure in scientific journals for his specious argumentation in favour of Intelligent Design. OMG, Behe is a Fundie! Indeed, he devotes some 50 pages to Intelligent Design. Sorry, that's pseudo-science!
Behe is the scientific equivalent of David Irving, the academic Holocaust denier. Idiots may believe it, but he doesn't have the excuse of ignorance. He knows when his arguments are wrong, but uses them all the same. I really despise intelligent people who put the truth second. The true spirit of science is argument in search of truth. But Behe doesn't want an adult discussion, he justs wants to "win" by fair means or foul, scoring cheap debating points in favour of his preconceived notions.
Show More
of how a car works that doesn't even mention the engine. Realising this analogy was plain wrong, I set the book aside to read later, perhaps...Later I rediscovered Behe as a recurrent target of censure in scientific journals for his specious argumentation in favour of Intelligent Design. OMG, Behe is a Fundie! Indeed, he devotes some 50 pages to Intelligent Design. Sorry, that's pseudo-science!
Behe is the scientific equivalent of David Irving, the academic Holocaust denier. Idiots may believe it, but he doesn't have the excuse of ignorance. He knows when his arguments are wrong, but uses them all the same. I really despise intelligent people who put the truth second. The true spirit of science is argument in search of truth. But Behe doesn't want an adult discussion, he justs wants to "win" by fair means or foul, scoring cheap debating points in favour of his preconceived notions.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Samer
Though Behe does not approach the issue of evolution from a perspective of faith, he comes to the conclusion that evolution could not possibly have brought about such biochemical marvels as the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting. In Darwin's day, they thought the cell was practically a blob of
Show More
goo. The more we learn, the more impossible it is for evolutionists to show how their hypothesis could have brought such intricate design about. Defections from the evolutionary camp, among secular scientists, are quite interesting to read into. Show Less
LibraryThing member PuddinTame
What a joy is was for me to be reading Appendix A and the explanations of various cellular functions and structures. Endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi bodies, chemical cascades - it has been so long since I even thought about them and it was like discovering old friends.
Behe does a wonderful job of
A raspberry to his publisher for the notes, however. As is far too commmon, if one wants to look up notes, the chapter is identified on the page only by name, but in the notes only by number. The reader has to keep flipping back to the beginning of the chapter for the number. Either include the number in the running title or the title in the notes!! How hard is that? Off the soap box.
I'm not a biochemist, so I will take Behe's word for it that the origin of these microstructures and biochemical processes is poorly understood. He goes to a great deal of trouble to establish this. He's right that it is a challenge to Darwinism - will they be able to include explanations in the current theory, will Darwinism be retained for multicellular animals but require an extension (like Einstein's extension of Newton), or will it be replaced by a new unified theory? I don't know. I am not convinced that Behe has proven his hypothesis though. I think that he should have taken a lesson from the Darwin/Dawkins discussion of the evolution of the eye. True, that explanation does not cover the biochemical and microbiological aspects, but it does answer the question on the level that it was posed. The anatomy of the eye was once considered to be irreducibly complex and clearly it is not. Whether or not one believes in Darwinism, it remains that eyes more primitive than ours work just fine for their owners. I think that it is early days to assume that no-one will ever be able to explain his "black box" without a designer.
It is not clear to me what Behe means to say about Darwinism. He starts off on the wrong foot with me in the preface by saying that "for over a century" most scientists have accepted evolution by natural selection, when in fact Darwin's ideas have stood up to extremely harsh scientific criticism, and around 1900 were pretty much considered to be dead. This is one of the things that gives me confidence in the theory.
Large sections of the book, especially Chapter 10 & 11 leave me rather baffled as to their point. I couldn't say by the end whether Behe opposes Darwinism or grants it limited acceptance. Behe takes strong exception to Richard Dickerson's somewhat lighthearted remarks on science, and I really cannot understand why. Perhaps Behe should explain his view of science.
I am quite puzzled as to what Behe means to say about Intelligent Design, he hems and haws. Would he consider both a personal god and experimenters from another planet to qualify equally as possible designers? In both cases, one closes the issue of the origin of life on earth only to open the even more problematic case of the origin of the designer. I'm willing to accept it as a hypothesis, although I freely admit I think it's unlikely. Behe is quite right when he says that it needs to be developed and researched rigorously if it is to be taken seriously, but I can't square that with his assertion that it is already proven. He fudges on the issue of examining the Designer(s) "under the microscope", claiming that we can't put our ancestors under the microscopes. Ah, but we do, both directly (examining fossils and bones) and indirectly (comparing biochemistry). He can insist all he likes that design is the only sensible solution, but that's not proof. Science has discarded lots of hypotheses that once seemed sensible. Proving that Darwinism doesn't work at this level does not, in and of itself, prove that Intelligent Design is correct. It needs to stand by its own positive evidence.
I have embarked on a program of reading books on the creation/evolution controversies; this is number 3. (I already read a lot on evolution, including all of Dawkins' books.) This is definitely superior to Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial.
Readers may be interested to know that Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God includes an interview with Behe. Kenneth R. Miller, a fellow biochemist, undertakes a very spirited criticism of Behe in his Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. I also recommend Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism by Robert T. Pennock, which contains some criticism of this book, and Mark Perakh's somewhat vituperous Unintelligent Design, especially as a guide to other sources, including websites, discussing Behe's work.
Behe does a wonderful job of
Show More
handling his descriptions of cellular structures and activities. He goes into a lot (although not exhaustive) detail in order to impress upon the reader just how complex these things are. The explanations are helpfully set off by symbols, so that the reader can skim, if they are content to just take in that yes, these are VERY complicated. Behe's love for the topic shines through and when he is on these topics he writes with clarity and affable charm. A raspberry to his publisher for the notes, however. As is far too commmon, if one wants to look up notes, the chapter is identified on the page only by name, but in the notes only by number. The reader has to keep flipping back to the beginning of the chapter for the number. Either include the number in the running title or the title in the notes!! How hard is that? Off the soap box.
I'm not a biochemist, so I will take Behe's word for it that the origin of these microstructures and biochemical processes is poorly understood. He goes to a great deal of trouble to establish this. He's right that it is a challenge to Darwinism - will they be able to include explanations in the current theory, will Darwinism be retained for multicellular animals but require an extension (like Einstein's extension of Newton), or will it be replaced by a new unified theory? I don't know. I am not convinced that Behe has proven his hypothesis though. I think that he should have taken a lesson from the Darwin/Dawkins discussion of the evolution of the eye. True, that explanation does not cover the biochemical and microbiological aspects, but it does answer the question on the level that it was posed. The anatomy of the eye was once considered to be irreducibly complex and clearly it is not. Whether or not one believes in Darwinism, it remains that eyes more primitive than ours work just fine for their owners. I think that it is early days to assume that no-one will ever be able to explain his "black box" without a designer.
It is not clear to me what Behe means to say about Darwinism. He starts off on the wrong foot with me in the preface by saying that "for over a century" most scientists have accepted evolution by natural selection, when in fact Darwin's ideas have stood up to extremely harsh scientific criticism, and around 1900 were pretty much considered to be dead. This is one of the things that gives me confidence in the theory.
Large sections of the book, especially Chapter 10 & 11 leave me rather baffled as to their point. I couldn't say by the end whether Behe opposes Darwinism or grants it limited acceptance. Behe takes strong exception to Richard Dickerson's somewhat lighthearted remarks on science, and I really cannot understand why. Perhaps Behe should explain his view of science.
I am quite puzzled as to what Behe means to say about Intelligent Design, he hems and haws. Would he consider both a personal god and experimenters from another planet to qualify equally as possible designers? In both cases, one closes the issue of the origin of life on earth only to open the even more problematic case of the origin of the designer. I'm willing to accept it as a hypothesis, although I freely admit I think it's unlikely. Behe is quite right when he says that it needs to be developed and researched rigorously if it is to be taken seriously, but I can't square that with his assertion that it is already proven. He fudges on the issue of examining the Designer(s) "under the microscope", claiming that we can't put our ancestors under the microscopes. Ah, but we do, both directly (examining fossils and bones) and indirectly (comparing biochemistry). He can insist all he likes that design is the only sensible solution, but that's not proof. Science has discarded lots of hypotheses that once seemed sensible. Proving that Darwinism doesn't work at this level does not, in and of itself, prove that Intelligent Design is correct. It needs to stand by its own positive evidence.
I have embarked on a program of reading books on the creation/evolution controversies; this is number 3. (I already read a lot on evolution, including all of Dawkins' books.) This is definitely superior to Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial.
Readers may be interested to know that Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God includes an interview with Behe. Kenneth R. Miller, a fellow biochemist, undertakes a very spirited criticism of Behe in his Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. I also recommend Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism by Robert T. Pennock, which contains some criticism of this book, and Mark Perakh's somewhat vituperous Unintelligent Design, especially as a guide to other sources, including websites, discussing Behe's work.
Show Less
LibraryThing member temsmail
This excellent book uses the principle of "irreducible complexity" to show how evolution is not possible at the molecular biology level .
LibraryThing member patrickmalka
I feel it is important to understand both sides of the argument. This side gets an A for effort. There's nothing wrong with the biochemistry here but what shocks me is the incredible leap taken to explain its origins. The problem here is a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory and a refusal
Oh and if you found this to be a difficult read in any way, I wouldn't go quoting its arguments as fact without having properly understood them and for that matter, properly understanding what evolutionary theory is.
Show More
to accept it for very unscientific reasons. In other words, a refusal to really look at both sides. Since this is a scientific argument, let's ignore for a moment the religious implications and just focus on the fact that the biggest claim made here is really that evolutionary biology has not yet found evidence of every intermediate biochemical structure and system leading up to the present form. Rather than ask why and continue the research, we dismiss the theory of evolution all together? That's ridiculous and I don't even really think that's what this book is saying but there is an eagerness to make that what this book is saying. This book ends up saying that evolution as a system exists but only after the complex building blocks were laid out by a designer (not even necessarily the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God). I do think this book needs to be read and given a chance if only to criticize the content for its lack of understanding of the idea it claims to disprove and its frustrating lack of curiosity at what explanations may arise with future research in the field of biochemistry.Oh and if you found this to be a difficult read in any way, I wouldn't go quoting its arguments as fact without having properly understood them and for that matter, properly understanding what evolutionary theory is.
Show Less
LibraryThing member reimann
I think my review of this excellent and solidly researched book is most easily adduced by the complete opposite of the review written by miketroll in this collection. It is fascinating that a book which puts forward a hypothesis based on experiment (rather than Darwinian evolution which is not) can
I am a scientist; I have always found any religion an indicator of personal inadequacy but I realise that scientists can also treat ideas as a matter of faith independent of the evidence for or against (cf global warming, global cooling, the Piltdown Man, phrenology, phlogiston and so on back to the dawn of thinking). Behe manages to make the astoundingly complex biochemical interactions which power the body at least accessible if not understandable. In the process he presents a solidly researched body of evidence which suggests that these molecules and their interactions could not have been the result of "gradual evolution" because it is not possible to show any intermediate steps which might have led to the function. Indeed, in many of his examples, any intermediate steps which could be imagined would have been counter evolutionary in that they would have selected against the target process.
And now back to miketroll. He says that the "true spirit of science is argument in search of truth". This is a common mistake made by the scientifically naive. Without even dipping into concepts regarding the philosophy of truth or the existential nature of reality, he and some other reviewers entirely miss the point. Science is about hypothesis - proposing a theory which matches observational data and can be tested by experiment and, most importantly, being prepared to modify or discard that theory if a better match comes along. Behe devotes a well reasoned book to the suggestion that Darwinian evolution may not be the (whole) answer and, in the process, puts forward some ideas about what might have happened. Just because these may not be very palatable doesn't mean that they are "cheap debating points" I hope you enjoy this book as much as I have
Show More
create so much posturing and bigotry amongst scientists and the faithful alike. I am a scientist; I have always found any religion an indicator of personal inadequacy but I realise that scientists can also treat ideas as a matter of faith independent of the evidence for or against (cf global warming, global cooling, the Piltdown Man, phrenology, phlogiston and so on back to the dawn of thinking). Behe manages to make the astoundingly complex biochemical interactions which power the body at least accessible if not understandable. In the process he presents a solidly researched body of evidence which suggests that these molecules and their interactions could not have been the result of "gradual evolution" because it is not possible to show any intermediate steps which might have led to the function. Indeed, in many of his examples, any intermediate steps which could be imagined would have been counter evolutionary in that they would have selected against the target process.
And now back to miketroll. He says that the "true spirit of science is argument in search of truth". This is a common mistake made by the scientifically naive. Without even dipping into concepts regarding the philosophy of truth or the existential nature of reality, he and some other reviewers entirely miss the point. Science is about hypothesis - proposing a theory which matches observational data and can be tested by experiment and, most importantly, being prepared to modify or discard that theory if a better match comes along. Behe devotes a well reasoned book to the suggestion that Darwinian evolution may not be the (whole) answer and, in the process, puts forward some ideas about what might have happened. Just because these may not be very palatable doesn't mean that they are "cheap debating points" I hope you enjoy this book as much as I have
Show Less
LibraryThing member Redbud
This book has ruffled not just a few feathers! It is worth a thorough reading for careful consideration.
LibraryThing member talifer
i believe anyone who considers themselves to have a scientific mind should have questions about evolution. this book has questions and proposes answers, but most of all it provokes thought about evolution and its possible limitations.
LibraryThing member gmhagues
In 10th grade this was one of my book reports. Shows the bankruptcy of the current paradigm.
LibraryThing member DollyBantry
Plausible argumentation, and easy to read for a non-scientist. I would wish he would update the book as this is from the 90's.
LibraryThing member hmskip
An able argument in favor of intelligent design. Although the subject matter is biochemistry (and I didn't do that well in that class), Behe makes a profound case in a very absorbing and readable fashion. The thesis is that living cells contain very complex, "irreducibly complex" chemical systems,
Show More
that work in ways that do not seem to allow any reasonable pathway for a Darwin-style, step-by-step evolution. Behe beats that drum until the reader does not want to hear any more, but the reason is that he is trying to build an unassailable fortress of arguments against those who, he knows, will attack any hint of intelligent design talk in the hallowed halls of science. Show Less
LibraryThing member librisissimo
The argument for Intelligent Design based on the irreducible complexity of the cellular components of organisms. In other words, trial-and-error wouldn't work at the biochemical level of being, even though species evolution is perfectly plausible. Behe introduces the complexity needed to support
Although rebutted by evolutionists, I find his arguments and evidence worth consideration.
(See also Ridley's "Genome" for more insight into human biology.)
Show More
his thesis while keeping the explanation simple enough for a well-educated layman to understand.Although rebutted by evolutionists, I find his arguments and evidence worth consideration.
(See also Ridley's "Genome" for more insight into human biology.)
Show Less
LibraryThing member matthewgray
Great book, challenging evolution - but written by a secular scientist not just Biblical creationist.
LibraryThing member Hamburgerclan
The creation/evolution debate is one I find interesting, but not that interesting. I've said in the past that I'd like to read more on evolution, but the truth is, I haven't. And this book, well, I've heard about it for years, but it wasn't until I picked up a copy of it at a book sale that I
--J.
Show More
actually got around to reading it. At one point I checked the copyright date and saw that it was first published in 1996. Oy! I am a master of procrastination! Anyway, I digress. In Darwin's Black Box, Professor Behe examines Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection in light of the findings of (then) current biochemistry. He offers a number of examples showing that biological systems are incredibly complex mechanisms and could not have developed piecemeal from random mutations. I found it an fascinating read. Oh, not his arguments about evolution. This book has been in print so long that I've heard most of them before in other media. What I really enjoyed was his examples--descriptions of some natural wonders that are happening all around us. It took me back to childhood days when I'd pore over science books from the library.--J.
Show Less