 | Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com | Michael J. Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, presents here a scientific argument for the existence of God. Examining the evolutionary theory of the origins of life, he can go part of the way with Darwin--he accepts the idea that species have been differentiated by the mechanism of natural selection from a common ancestor. But he thinks that the essential randomness of this process can explain evolutionary development only at the macro level, not at the micro level of his expertise. Within the biochemistry of living cells, he argues, life is "irreducibly complex." This is the last black box to be opened, the end of the road for science. Faced with complexity at this level, Behe suggests that it can only be the product of "intelligent design." |
Average Customer Rating:    A worthwhile read for any REAL scientist This book provides an excellent account for the intricate complexities encountered in an orgransim as well as those found in individual cells. It provides sound examples of complex biochemical pathways that make a gradualistic explanation of their origination highly improbable. Dr. Behe provides an accurate and up-to-date understanding of these biological systems that was not available at the time of Darwin.
As a dedicated, mainstream scientist who has conducted high quality research at two leading biomedical institutions, I highly recommend this book to anyone who is truly committed to authentic scientific exploration whether it be in the biological sciences or any other branch. This book will confirm what you believe Book to read if you want to be reassured in your dogmatic beliefs or frustrated in your non dogmatic beliefs. "Darwins Black Box" The book is very interesting as it updates an old Biologist/Ecologist on many bio chemical data. It is written in a nonsectarian manner showing that Darwin was wrong because he did not have the instruments to work on the molecular level. I bought the book for a College Professor friend who teaches freshman biology. He had not run int this book and was quite interested when I told him about it.
The new book came in short order after I oudered it from Amazon.com. Irreducible Controversy; Intelligent Debate. Micheal Behe has written a jargon-free book about complex biochemical processes at the molecular level which is accessible for a non-scientific generalist such as me. No mean feat in and of itself. Before trying to elucidate what this book is "about," one should declare what this book is not: DARWIN'S BLACK BOX is not a polemic which tries to prove the existence of God. Behe flips upon its head the very charge that has been unfairly levied upon him: an adroitly argued challenge to prejudicial and closed minds.
In a nutshell Behe's thesis is that "irreducible complexity" at the molecular level seem to escape an evolutionary explanation. Behe argues that the interdependency of complex systems such as a bacterial flagellum could not possibly have come about by the piecemeal result of natural selection. The development of an irreducibly complex system would have to involve a series of genetic mutations, working not only in unison, but to the umpteenth degree for functionality. Behe believes that on a purely mathematical level, genetic mutation couldn't possibly account for the complexity of organisms at the molecular level.
The central analogy that Behe uses to explain irreducible complexity is a simple mousetrap. The independent mechanisms of a mousetrap would be utterly useless unless they work as part an interdependent whole. Behe argues that there must be something outside of the framework of observable phenomenon that accounted for the irreducible complexity of cells at the biochemical level. An irreducibly complex system is like a minutely engineered machine whose very existence (much less its function,) is necessarily reliant on the totality of its dependent parts - if one or more of these components is removed or defective, the entire machine will not function.
Behe is at his best giving a working explanation of biological systems at the biochemical level. Behe's lucid writing skills deftly illustrates how the whiplike "motor" of the bacterial flagellum and cilium functions. The main weakness to Behe's argument is that if an intelligent entity necessarily exits outside of the parameters of science, how can scientific inquiry be applied and tested to prove or disprove its existence? Is intelligent design the only plausible explanation? Or are there other alternate explanations for irreducible complexity? In the final analysis, Behe's thesis is more an act of faith than a scientific inquiry.
I recommend the book not only because of the merits and strengths of its arguments but on the witty and engaging writing skills of Behe. Behe turns the evolution debate on its head by claiming that in many instances, it is a fair share of the scientific community who have closed their minds: "Many people, including many, well-respected scientists just don't want there to be anything beyond nature. [They] bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world."
It should be noted that Behe himself is not a religious fundamentalist, believing not only in the standard model of the age of the universe, but also that both mankind and apes share a common ancestry. Though I believe in evolution, I am a believing, and not a nominal Christian (i.e. I believe in the resurrection and divinity of Christ.) I recommend this book not because I necessarily agree with Behe's conclusions, but because Behe rejects orthodoxy in all its myriad semblances. Poor and biased logic does not convince So many questions come up while reading this book. What originated life? Can we use examples of man-made nonliving systems to discuss living systems? Does the scientific community actually propose that life arose from non-living matter? To which I answer `we don't know'; yes and no; and we shall have to change our definition of `non-living matter' which quantum physics has done quite well.
How about this question? How much of my body, a living system, is under my conscious control? It appears, upon a quick analysis, that most of my bodily functions are under a system of control that is not under "my" conscious control. I certainly did not originate the control, either. If I fuel it and keep it wet, the living system that is me is good-to-go. Think about that. If we don't posit an external designer, then we might simply leave the question open ended and conclude that some sort of intelligence continues to keep our bodily systems in operation and it appears to originate squarely within the system itself. The earth is teaming with life and something inherent within it regulates it.
You and I are under the natural order and so is everything Behe is discussing. We can't explain how life originated, yet, nothing but life surrounds us. Every natural process continues to "cohere", assemble, grow and live despite evolutions truth (or a lack thereof). Michael Behe uses examples of man-made items to propose a designer of life because everything we know we made has one of us as a designer. But this is circular reasoning and does not help us understand living systems. In fact, it distracts us. Life continues to be whole and connected. Man-made systems become whole and connected piece-wise and cannot ever come back together after deterioration and stress separate them unless acted upon by someone (owner, repairmen or designer). Life is not like this, esp. at the level of biochemical processes. Life at this level is good at cohesion and connecting, repairing and gaining an advantage in its environment no man-made system is capable of.
Behe draws on man-made irreducibly complex systems to build his case that if we design these systems, all irreducibly complex systems in nature require a designer. But, using examples of man-made items can't help us understand living systems. Man-made items are discreet and disconnected from everything else. The only similarity to nature is that both naturally occurring and man-made irreducibly complex systems both fail when a part is removed. This does not mean an intelligence like ours built nature's irreducibly complex systems. It does not imply a designer like us, that is external to that of "designed" or "assembled" nature. It rather implies strongly that nature is itself the owner, operating and designer. One of the earliest suggestion I've found that asks us to see this is found in the book by J.C. Smuts titled "Holism and Evolution" c.1926.
Behe shows that many man-made items, for instance a simple mousetrap, are what he refers to as "irreducibly complex". That is, remove any one part in the item and it does not function. From this he concludes that
"Irreducibly complex systems like mousetraps, Rube Goldberg machines, and the intracellular transport system cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion." (pg. 111).
He then goes on to state that one cannot use parts from one complex system (spring from a grandfather clock) in another complex system (mousetrap) with out first "extensively" modify them. He concludes,
"Analogous parts playing other roles in other systems cannot relieve the irreducible complexity of a new system; the focus simply shifts from `making' the component to `modifying' them. In either case, there is no new function unless an intelligent agent guides the setup." (pgs. 112 & 113).
He had me (and I think can stand proud) until he uttered that last sentence. The last sentence is an assumption with clearly defined human biases at work. And, as such, it just simply isn't necessarily even true! If he could simply stand pat with the fact that Darwinian evolution does not necessarily explain biochemical evolution (which it wasn't intended to do, but some in the scientific community have maintained that it must), he would have had a winning argument. But, when he clearly references an intelligent "agent" we cannot be mistaken that by "agent" he means something external to the system itself. This is pure human bias, and as such, has no place in any scientific endeavor. |  |
Select button not working? 
