Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

The power of Darwin’s Black Box rests in its persuasive and compelling argument against the explanation for the gradual development of life based on Darwinian evolution by natural selection. What the reader gets is a powerful, evidence-based, data-driven book that exposes Darwinian macroevolution as an archaic idea that lacks explanatory power and ultimately is scientifically bankrupt. Dr. Behe’s negative argument stands on its own, so even though he goes on to make a case for intelligent design, he never draws a conclusion of, “Therefore, it must be God.” Rather, after being educated on the falsity of Darwin’s theory, in the second part of the book the author makes an inference to the best explanation (design) while leaving the door open for science to make contributions in the future. As a biochemist, Dr. Behe clarifies that at a molecular level, life is not only astronomically complex but irreducibly complex, and thus any plausible explanation for life must have a clear and precise elucidation of how this complexity arose. Science triumphs because it provides an explanation for “How?” If something fails to clearly and specifically answer that question, then it fails to be scientific. (And no, exclusively critiquing alternatives will not suffice). Hence, Dr. Behe marvelously explains that (1) Darwin’s theory is deficient when it comes to explaining the “elegant complexity of molecular machinery,” (2) irreducible complexity forms an near-impregnable barrier to the notion that natural selection acts to facilitate evolution and (3) the more intensely we look at life (that is, at a molecular level, which is more scrupulous than biology) the harder life is to explain because of the appearance of design. The last point means that the more we discover about how life works (science) the demand placed on a Darwinian explanation astronomically increases. After laying the groundwork in Part I, each chapter in Part II of Darwin’s Black Box describes a unique system (e.g. the “cilium” or the swimming device that some cells use; the human blood-clotting cascade and the human immune system). Each chapter analyzes if the system could have developed in gradual Darwinian fashion. In addition there is a discussion about what the scientific community has said about the possible evolution of the system. Part III discusses why, in spite of evidence to the contrary, so many scientists invest in Darwin’s theory. There is also a discussion about intelligent design. The 10th Anniversary Edition is very helpful because in the “Afterword” Behe interacts with some of his most prominent critics in the decade after Darwin’s Black Box was published. Here, the author effectively counters a myriad of the objections evolutionists made to his work, particularly his discussion about irreducible complexity. The Appendix contains a brief summary of the biochemical principles involved in the operations of a cell. This book is tremendously well-written by an author who able to captivate his audience with language and analogies that whisks your biochemical imagination into shape. His use of comparison is so wonderfully executed that I wish I had Dr. Behe teaching me biochemistry in medical school. Even if you disagree with the author’s central thesis, what you are left with is a wonderful introduction to the beauty and wonder of life on a molecular scale. In the end, just because everyone believes something is true does not make it so. Consequently, in spite of a scientific consensus that evolution is true, Dr. Michael Behe is brave and courageous enough to ask, “Was Darwin wrong?” Darwin's Black Box is a soaring pillar of rational insight that shouts a resounding, “Yes!” with the proof to back it up.

It surprises me that this book is more than ten years old. I guess I let my mind run on automatic pilot with regard to "Intelligent Design" --- and the autopilot tended to assume that ID was going to be completely uninteresting, like the "ideas" of a flat earth, or young-earth creationism. This book, along with Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design , has convinced me that my autopilot was completely mistaken. Intelligent Design is NOT "creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo." As Stephen Meyer has pointed out, the creationist movement grew out of the Bible --- it was born in Holy Writ. Intelligent Design comes out of science, most particularly the stunning discoveries about the nanotechnology in the living cell. What we have found in the cell is an amazing, very large group of molecular machines, which could be called a nanotechnology factory. Probably the most amazing thing about this factory is that it can duplicate itself, and perhaps the most inexplicable thing is that it runs using computer technology. The genetic code found in DNA is something we might never have understood without discovering computers first, and it's also something we NEVER would have comprehended if we hadn't found the "decoder ring" right there in the cell with the genetic code. Who would have dreamed that three letters of genetic code specified an amino acid, and that a sequence of hundreds of letters would specify all the amino acids needed to make a specific protein? The question asks itself: how did this come about? The Darwinian fundamentalists naturally think that it happened by "evolution," their one-word answer for everything, but they have yet to come up with even one plausible explanation of how this stuff evolved. The problem is "irreducible complexity," which is found when a machine needs all of its parts in order to function, and the different parts by themselves do nothing. A simple example of evolution (in our hands) might be scissors: we can see pretty easily how a stone tool became a metal knife (useful all the way), and how two metal knives were lashed together to make the first clumsy pair of scissors. But that sort of step-by-step evolution does NOT explain a mousetrap, much less DNA, messenger RNA, and the rest of the amazing stuff going on in a human cell. Compared with a cell, the Jacquard loom is downright primitive --- and that loom is what led to the "IBM card" (the Hollerith punch card) of distant memory. I guess there are two main books which explain Intelligent Design, this one and Stephen Meyer's book. Meyer's book is slightly more difficult and technical, while this one is a bit easier to read and has more humor. The choice is up to you, but I would strongly recommend looking at one of them. This is NOT creationism redux, it's the beginning of a paradigm shift. Darwinian evolution can explain a lot of things, but it can't explain the origin of the universe or the origin of life. As a final note, if these books get you to thinking about who the Designer might be, it's well to remember that he is not necessarily the God of any particular religion. You may be persuaded that The Great Spirit or The Force is probably there, but he or it remains completely mysterious --- aside from being incomprehensibly intelligent.

"Unbridgeable chasms occur even at the tiniest level of life." Turn your brain up a notch, Michael brings out the microscope. He brings forth a refreshing new approach on the creation debate. Although technical, this proves important to show complexities. Easily understood analogies that the author makes entertaining and fun. Many references for further studies. Behe sets out to show the proof of a creator, and this is as far as he goes. The book is ammunition for the creationist and maybe a spark that ignites an atheist. Biochemistry: the study of the very basis of life; the finely calibrated machines. Michael Behe is professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. He says, small doesn't mean simple; an organism can not function (if only one thing missing) without being in the first place (fatally incomplete); are small infatasamil changes really that small; biochemical examples are irreducibly complex, a marvel; evolution can't show how it can arise. He even goes as far as to try to show how these complexities could possibly work through evolution. He covers blood coagulation, the cell, bacterium, and immune system complexity. Of course above the cellular level, design is hard to prove. More and more black boxes (unknown paradoxes) are opened as technology moves forward, thus becoming harder and harder to explain away. There are many geneticists and physicists who see major difficulties (paradox) with Darwin's theory. The evolution/creation debates dwell on whole organisms or maybe an eye, but what of the level of what makes up that eye? The new theory is punctuated equilibrium, but this book will show that "evolution would have to evolve in numerous, successive, slight modifications and this theory is now in trouble with the evolutionists, and still shown as improbable here". Keep the belief, for in time it will be proven without doubt, that someday all the questions will be answered, but tomorrow never comes. "What use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble?" How would of Darwin reacted to this complexity? Should not science stick to "hard science" if creationists have to stick with the supernatural? There's a designer, now what?..............

This is a divisive book. Many of Behe’s critics consider him a scientific charlatan while his supporters see Darwin’s Black Box as a pivotal text amid the arguments for Intelligent Design. Behe’s argument is that there are machines/processes/phenomena etc. that are irreducibly complex. By that he means that they have constituent parts each of which is crucial for their functioning. He gives simple examples (a mousetrap) and far more complex ones (the flagellum). His point is that Darwinian evolution cannot account for the existence of something irreducibly complex because evolution is gradualist and incremental, while something irreducibly complex must be complete at the outset. Irreducibly complex things infer a designer and Behe returns to Paley’s image of an individual walking among sand, grit and rocks who suddenly stumbles upon a watch, the latter of which gives the walker pause. You might find any number of things upon the surface of the moon, e.g., but if you find a nice Omega seamaster you will stop and ask yourself, ‘how did this get here?’ Omega seamasters must be designed. Behe is more intent on demonstrating the shortcomings of Darwinism than on pressing his readers to worship a divine designer. Darwin was perforce ignorant of modern molecular biology; Behe is a molecular biologist; molecular biology provides examples of very complex phenomena. He also realizes that the classic ‘arguments’ for the existence of God were never considered apodictic proofs that compel belief. They are, rather, aids to piety, including the argument from design. It is important for readers to secure the 2006 edition of the book because it includes a summary of the criticisms to which the book had been subjected since the original publication in 1996. Behe then answers these criticisms. This is always problematic. Serious students of the subject will want to look at the wider literature and, in particular, the arguments of Behe’s critics. While it is always interesting to see a thinker tilt with his critics, the critics need to be heard in their own voices and in the context of their own arguments. The 2006 edition also includes an extensive appendix on the ‘chemistry of life’ for those readers who wish to acquire some foundational knowledge on the subject. One of the interesting aspects of Darwin’s Black Box is its scientific ‘rhetoric’. The bulk of the text is written for the general reader, but interspersed among Behe’s narrative is a set of passages that explore the issues in far greater scientific detail. These passages are set off by printer’s devices. The general reader can skip them; the advanced reader can examine them; or, interestingly, the general reader can read them, knowing that s/he will not be able to absorb them but will, nevertheless, acquire a sense of the complexity and depth of the issues. Readers interested in philosophy, theology, etc. will find things of interest here. I was not aware, e.g., of Elliot Sober’s critique of Hume’s critique of the design argument, which is quite interesting. Behe is not an iconoclast attempting to destroy Darwinism. He acknowledges (pp. 175-6) that evolution, random mutation and natural selection exist and he believes in the notion of common descent. He is simply arguing that Darwin does not explain everything. Hence the book should be seen as raising the kinds of questions (microevolution/macroevolution, the Cambrian explosion, etc.) that have already arisen with regard to Darwinian evolution. The book is quite readable and the illustrations are helpful. The subject is huge, however, and aggressively debated. I look at it as an important text in the history of science, one that could be eventually lauded as a landmark or dismissed as a laughingstock. Many have already made up their minds, but all should be aware of its existence and its argument. In a sense, science is never ‘settled’. As George Steiner has pointed out, the very essence of science is that it can be superseded. Watching that process is both fascinating and important.

Michael Behe has done a marvelous job of communicating to both the academic community and the average reader. His style is readable and contains just enough light humor to avoid becoming boring. His topic is crucial to the culture of the planet. His argument for irreducible complexity inferring intelligent design seems inescapable in it's obvious simplicity, and when combined with William Dembski's conclusions about specified complexity develops a compelling argument for intelligent design. The scientific community has remorselessly overcome our political, legal and educational cultures with convictions of the non-value of life and the pointless existence of humanity, thereby obliterating hope and value in human reality. Behe's work does an about face and points to purpose and transcendental meaning for mankind. This is accomplished in a very learned and intellectual manner, paving the way (in concert with the works of William Dembski) for the reconciliation of science and spirituality. One can only hope that this movement towards intelligent design as a viable intellectual pursuit, which has attracted a growing number of scholars (see also "Uncommon Dissent"), will persist to gain momentum and forestall the otherwise inevitable plunge of humanity into a black hole of materialistic despair. If the scientific community succeeds in convicting our global culture of the insignificance of human life, the eventual outcome will inevitably be the devaluation of being human to the point that civil rights and survival of the unfit will become history. Imagine population issues becoming directed by a remorseless materialistic imperative; the culture imagined in "Brave New World" would be the likely result. I can only hope that Behe's arguments, and those of the other scholars in this controversy, reach enough ears to encourage a greater acceptance of spirituality within the ranks of our global and national leaders.

I finished the book last night and it is simply the best discussion on Intelligent Design I've ever read. Behe's call for common sense on the topic is the best grounded writing and the most refreshing reading I've done, helping to put into perspective all biochemical complexity. Wonderful! After reading in this book about subjects that I have studied multiple times in the past (i.e. the coagulation cascade and the immune system), I'm still amazed as when reading similar recommended books, how it never crossed my mind of how all this came to be in the first place back then when I first studied these subjects. I think that in the past, as I studied the complexity of biological systems, classical Darwinian evolution explanations were boxed away in my brain as something that had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Still, it is mind boggling how thousands of researchers around the world breach such complex subjects on a daily basis and never ask the question: how this all came to be? This is definitely a scientific inquiry worthy of pursuing and there's no reason why scientists should lose it when "supernatural"/intelligent design explanations are taken into account. All the data points to it and ignoring the obvious is what seems to be driving everybody nuts. Others who get away with the theory that doesn't take into account Intelligent Design are just ignorant of the level of coordinated complexity behind living beings. Looking forward for more of his common sense!

Well crafted, rational discussion on why Darwin got it wrong. I enjoyed Behe’s excellent exposition of a complex subject. His opponents, including some that have written reviews here, scream indignantly that this is rubbish, unscientific, ludicrous. But what has stayed with me since reading the book is that none of these people can offer a shred of proof that evolution is even possible. As Behe points out, the scientific community are silent on how life began, or how the steps of Darwinian belief take place. Their denial of Intelligent Design is an emotional response, because they cannot and will not have any possibility of God being in the mix. As Michael Denton said, Darwinism is a theory in crisis.

This book makes an incredible case for intelligent design. Sadly, it is clear that many of the 1 star reviews have not actually read his book, as their criticisms do not at all relate to this book. This book is NOT a 7-day creationist/young earth/biblical literalist book. Behe does believe in evolution and the scientifically accepted age of the earth. In this book, he discusses the complexity of biochemistry, why natural selection can not work at the biochemical level, and the positive case for design. He goes into great technical detail about the biochemistry of body systems such as the blood clotting system and the immune system, and why it is not possible that these type of systems evolved via natural selection. He does not mention God or guess at who the designer is, as he says that is outside the realm of science and in the philosophical/religious domain. He goes into great detail explaining why the simplistic view of natural selections in systems such as eyesight made sense at one time, but why these explanations no longer make any sense with the discovery of DNA and the advent of the science of biochemistry. He discusses how the nearly complete lack of scientific articles supporting natural selection at the biochemical level and newer scientific theories proposing other mechanisms than natural selection as an explanation for systems such as the immune system or blood clotting system. (He also shows how the evidence shows that intelligent design is more likely, but scientifically admits that these other explanations can not be ruled out completely.) For the positive case for design, he discusses how other fields (such as archaeology) can scientifically determine if something was designed or natural (perhaps not in all cases, but in many cases without a shadow of a doubt) and how science can also look at the biochemistry of a cell in the same way, scientifically determining design or naturalstance. In an afterward written 10 years after the book, he discusses criticisms of his book--and sadly, most of these criticisms also seem to be from people who did not actually read his book.Bottom line, none of the critics have answered the main points he's made in this book. The one problem with this book, is that in spite of Behe's best attempts to teach biochemistry, this can be extremely hard to understand if someone has background in organic chemistry. I suspect many people without the appropriate background, could not slog through the text. This would explain why the 1 star reviews attack what non-scientist intelligent design proponents have said in the past, and not what was actually said in this book.

Professor Michael Behe delivers magnificently in, 'Darwin's Black Box' by forceful reminder that Darwin's theory only stood for cursory description of traits and gross anatomy - yet the modern discovery of the vast, complex world of the cell - the 'black box' for Darwin - now reveals multiple layers of function on the molecular level that are both breathtaking to consider and a fierce challenge to Darwin's theory. As we are all aware, countless examples of order and harmony show themselves in the plant and animal world, even down to bacteria - to the degree that an appearance of design is evident. Darwin asserted that mindless, unguided processes rendered this appearance of design to be nothing more than illusory. Behe offers a timeless and cogent rebuttal in his book that persuasively argues for intelligence being the causal substrate of design in the biosphere.

E' un trattato basico per ragionare in modo alternativo sull'evoluzione senza perdersi in sciocchezze fondamentaliste da una parte o dall'altra. Esprime il parere di un biochimico che può essere accettato o no, ma resta sempre una espressione scientifica legittima. In epoca moderna, opporsi in modo fondamentalista ad un'idea o ad un'ipotesi solo perché non la si condivide, esprime, quando non tendenziosa, una limitatezza di razionalità e di democrazia. Uno scienzato ed un ricercatore devono accettare le idee degli altri seppur non condivise. Tanto più se non si è, comunque, in grado di dimostrare galileianamente, il contrario di cio che l'opponente propone..

Good book. Quality of paper somewhat not good. But content is good. Excellent book. One should reconsider their views on evolution. Instead of accusing him as psedo we must face the challenges from biochemistry. I have been studying about evolution but none of any book gave detailed step by step by description of animal came from common ancestor. Anatomical similarality doesn't havr 100% 0roof for evolution

Ok

Controversial, reflexivo.