Darwin's Black Box

Last updated
Darwin's Black Box
Darwin's Black Box.jpeg
Cover of the first edition
Author Michael Behe
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Subject Intelligent design
Publisher Free Press
Publication date
1996
Media typePrint (Hardcover and Paperback)
ISBN 978-0-684-82754-4
OCLC 34150540
575 20
LC Class QH367.3 .B43 1996
Followed by The Edge of Evolution  

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996; second edition 2006) is a book by Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. In the book Behe presents his notion of irreducible complexity and argues that its presence in many biochemical systems therefore indicates that they must be the result of intelligent design rather than evolutionary processes. In 1993, Behe had written a chapter on blood clotting in Of Pandas and People, presenting essentially the same arguments but without the name "irreducible complexity," [1] which he later presented in very similar terms in a chapter in Darwin's Black Box. Behe later agreed that he had written both and agreed to the similarities when he defended intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. [2] [3]

Contents

The book has received highly critical reviews by many scientists, arguing that the assertions made by Behe fail with logical scrutiny and amount to pseudoscience. For example, in a review for Nature , Jerry Coyne panned the book for what he saw as usage of quote mining and spurious ad hominem attacks. [4] The New York Times also, in a critique written by Richard Dawkins, condemned the book for having promoted discredited arguments. [5] Despite this, the book has become a commercial success, and, as a bestseller, [6] it received a mostly supportive review from Publishers Weekly , which described it as having a "spirited, witty critique of neo-Darwinian thinking" that may "spark interest." [7] The politically conservative magazine National Review also voted Darwin's Black Box one of their top 100 non-fiction books of the century, using a panel that included Discovery Institute member George Gilder. [8] [9]

Summary

The "black box" in the title refers to the conceptual tool in which, for one reason or another, the internal workings of a device are taken for granted, so that its function may be discussed. The philosophical tool is commonly used in scientific discourse, and Behe notes that understandings of cellular structure and other aspects of microbiology were not much understood when Charles Darwin was alive. He then states that he plans to delve into the issue.

Behe begins by reminding the general reader of paradigm shifts in the history of science, in which the foundations and assumptions of theories are examined, sometimes resulting in the rejection of an entire past theory. Behe suggests that such a paradigm shift in biology (and particularly in evolution) is imminent due to recent discoveries (circa 1996) in biochemistry. Behe acknowledges acceptance of the theory of evolution by "the great majority" of scientists, and he states that "most (though not all) do so based on authority."

Behe states that elucidations of the evolutionary history of various biological features typically assume the existence of certain abilities as their starting point, such as Charles Darwin's example of a cluster of light-sensitive spots evolving into an eye via a series of intermediate steps. He then points out that Darwin dismissed the need to explain the origin of the 'simple' light-sensitive spot, summarizes the modern understanding of the biochemistry of vision and claims that many other evolutionary explanations face a similar challenge.

Behe next introduces and defines the concept of irreducible complexity as a system with a series of parts in which the removal of any part causes the entire system to cease functioning, offering a spring-loaded bar mousetrap as a familiar example. In the following chapters, Behe discusses the apparent irreducible complexity of several biological systems, including the cilium, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system, and vesicular transport. Behe claims the underlying complexity and biochemical mechanisms of the systems are vastly under-appreciated, and identifies other, similar systems.

Behe identifies one of the primary counter-arguments of irreducible complexity, gradual adaptation—that certain systems may have been co-opted from an original, unrelated role to assume a new function as an irreducibly complex system. He counter-argues that though it is impossible to consider all possible roles for any component, it is extremely implausible that components can fortuitously change function within a complex system and that the focus of the theory changes from making to modifying components and recounts unsuccessful attempts to discover evolutionary pathways for complex systems within scientific journals. Behe states that though he did identify assertions that evolution had occurred, he found none that had been supported by experiment or calculation, and concludes the book by offering intelligent design as a solution to irreducible complexity.

Reception

Darwin's Black Box was not well received by the scientific community, which rejected Behe's premises and arguments. Kenneth Miller described Behe's argument as an updated version of the argument from design with reference to biochemistry (which was echoed by other reviewers), [10] [11] and also cites areas in biochemistry and the fossil record which demonstrate currently irreducibly complex systems evolving. Miller also describes Behe's theory as unfalsifiable, arguing that it arbitrarily ignores evidence that shows the evolution of a biochemical system. [12] On his blog, PZ Myers described it as "...an example of pseudoscientific dreck that has been enormously influential." [13] In a review for Nature , Jerry Coyne described the book hailing from 'populist' creationism that failed to deal with the evidence for evolution honestly. Coyne also accuses Behe of quote mining and using ad hominem attacks against scientists while 'timidly accepting' evolution. [4]

A review on the pro-evolution website talk.origins, described the book as "...an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance" and that within it systems were labeled "irreducibly complex" if Behe was not able to envision a simpler system that still worked. The review also stated that the theory was unfalsifiable (echoing Miller [12] ), with faulty logic that worked because Behe did not provide crucial facts that would illustrate its failings. [14] H. Allen Orr has called Behe's argument in the book "...just plain wrong," arguing that gradual adaptation could produce irreducibly complex systems. Orr points to examples of gradual adaptation already known (citing to the work of H. J. Muller in the early 20th century [15] ). Behe is also criticized for claiming a conspiracy of silence among scientists regarding the 'failure of Darwinism'. [10]

Richard Dawkins criticized the book for The New York Times as being logically flawed by setting up a false dichotomy in which Darwinian evolution is rejected despite an enormous amount of positive evidence due to a single apparent failure to explain irreducible complexity. Dawkins further commented that it was an argument Darwin himself had anticipated, and he stated that the example of a bacterial flagellum used by Behe had in fact been refuted by Kenneth R. Miller in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District . [5] Behe has responded to some of these criticisms. [16] [17] The politically conservative magazine National Review voted Darwin's Black Box one of their top 100 non-fiction books of the century. The panel included George Gilder, a Discovery Institute member. [8] [18]

Creation

In a review of Behe's paper 'Design vs. Randomness in Evolution: Where Do the Data Point?', Denis Lamoureux criticized Darwin's Black Box as having become central to fundamentalist and evangelical anti-evolution critiques against biological evolution. Behe supports the historically incorrect misrepresentation that Darwin's views on the origin of life were atheistic, when On the Origin of Species repeatedly refers to a Creator in a positive and supportive context as impressing laws on matter. Though Behe has avoided committing himself to the view that God intervenes directly in nature to create purportedly irreducibly complex structures, Darwin's Black Box briefly speculates that divine intervention might have caused the direct creation of a cell from which all of life evolved, supporting creationist views of miraculous acts of creation, but ironically echoing Darwin's stated: "view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one." Behe's claim that the creation of an original first cell represents a "gap" in the laws of nature needing divine intervention appears to be the problematic God of the gaps position which is subject to the gaps being filled by scientific discoveries. Behe's thesis that irreducible structures are created in "one fell swoop" is opposed by other biochemists, including many who are devout Christians, and has no support from the fossil record. [19]

Peer review controversy

In 2005, while testifying for the defense in the Dover trial, Behe claimed under oath that the book had received a more thorough peer review than a scholarly article in a refereed journal, [20] a claim which appears to conflict the facts of the book's peer review. [21] Four of the book's five reviewers (Michael Atchison, Robert Shapiro, K. John Morrow, and Russell Doolittle) have made statements that contradict or otherwise do not support Behe's claim of the book passing a rigorous peer review.

Michael Atchison
Atchison has stated that he did not review the book at all, but spent 10 minutes on the phone receiving a brief overview of the book which he then endorsed without ever seeing the text. [22]
Robert Shapiro
Shapiro has said that he reviewed the book, and while he agreed with some of its analysis of origin-of-life research, he thought its conclusions are false, though the best explanation of the argument from design that was available. [23] Had the book been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and this comment had appeared, the review provided by Shapiro would have forced the conclusions regarding intelligent design to be changed or removed. [23]
K. John Morrow
Morrow criticized the book as appalling and unsupported, which contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication. [24]
Russell Doolittle
Doolittle, upon whom Behe based much of his discussion of blood clotting, described it as misrepresenting a simplified explanation he had given in a lecture, and presenting a fallacious creationist miscalculation of improbability by omitting known options, [25] which also contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication. [26]

In the same trial, Behe eventually testified under oath that "There are no peer-reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." [27] The result of the trial was the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intelligent design</span> Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Irreducible complexity</span> Argument by proponents of intelligent design

Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed, so supposedly could not have evolved by successive small modifications from earlier less complex systems through natural selection, which would need all intermediate precursor systems to have been fully functional. Irreducible complexity has become central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but the concept of irreducible complexity has been rejected by the scientific community, which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent-design proponents to support their version of the theological argument from design, used alongside specified complexity which is supposed to add mathematical support for it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William A. Dembski</span> American mathematician

William Albert Dembski is an American mathematician, philosopher and theologian. He was a proponent of intelligent design (ID) pseudoscience, specifically the concept of specified complexity, and was a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). On September 23, 2016, he officially retired from intelligent design, resigning all his "formal associations with the ID community, including [his] Discovery Institute fellowship of 20 years". A February 2021 interview in the CSC's blog Evolution News announced "his return to the intelligent design arena".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Behe</span> American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate

Michael Joseph Behe is an American biochemist and author, widely known as an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID). He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known as an advocate for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where his views were cited in the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is religious in nature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intelligent design movement</span> Neo-creationist religious campaign

The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist religious campaign for broad social, academic and political change to promote and support the pseudoscientific idea of intelligent design (ID), which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its chief activities are a campaign to promote public awareness of this concept, the lobbying of policymakers to include its teaching in high school science classes, and legal action, either to defend such teaching or to remove barriers otherwise preventing it. The movement arose out of the creation science movement in the United States, and is driven by a small group of proponents.

<i>Intelligent Design</i> (book) 1999 book by William Dembski

Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology is a 1999 book by the mathematician William A. Dembski, in which the author presents an argument in support of intelligent design. Dembski defines the term "specified complexity", and argues that instances of it in nature cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution, but instead are consistent with the intelligent design. He also derives an instance of his self-declared law of conservation of information and uses it to argue against Darwinian evolution. The book is a summary treatment of the mathematical theory he presents in The Design Inference (1998), and is intended to be largely understandable by a nontechnical audience. Dembski also provides a Christian theological commentary, and analysis of, what he perceives to be the historical and cultural significance of the ideas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wedge strategy</span> Creationist political and social action plan

The Wedge Strategy is a creationist political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document. Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect politically conservative fundamentalist evangelical Protestant values. The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log.

<i>Of Pandas and People</i> Creationist supplementary textbook by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon

Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins is a controversial 1989 school-level supplementary textbook written by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, edited by Charles Thaxton and published by the Texas-based Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE). The textbook endorses the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design – the argument that life shows evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent which is not named specifically in the book, although proponents understand that it refers to the Christian God. The overview chapter was written by young Earth creationist Nancy Pearcey. They present various polemical arguments against the scientific theory of evolution. Before publication, early drafts used cognates of "creationist". After the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to "intelligent design". The second edition published in 1993 included a contribution written by Michael Behe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Teach the controversy (campaign)</span> Discovery Institute campaign to promote intelligent design

The "teach the controversy" campaign of the Discovery Institute seeks to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design as part of its attempts to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses. Scientific organizations point out that the institute claims that there is a scientific controversy where in fact none exists.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intelligent designer</span> In neo-creationism, the creator of life

An intelligent designer, also referred to as an intelligent agent, is the hypothetical willed and self-aware entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life. The term "intelligent cause" is also used, implying their teleological supposition of direction and purpose in features of the universe and of living things.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Watchmaker analogy</span> Teleological argument which states that a design implies a designer

The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument which states, by way of an analogy, that a design implies a designer, especially intelligent design by an intelligent designer, i.e. a creator deity. The watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. The original analogy played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God of the universe, in both Christianity and Deism. Prior to Paley, however, Sir Isaac Newton, René Descartes, and others from the time of the scientific revolution had each believed "that the physical laws he [each] had uncovered revealed the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to be akin to a watch, wherein the watchmaker is God."

<i>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District</i> 2005 court case in Pennsylvania

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design (ID), ultimately found by the court to not be science. In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book. The prominence of this textbook during the trial was such that the case is sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial, a name which recalls the popular name of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.

Michael John Denton is a British-Australian proponent of intelligent design and a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He holds a PhD degree in biochemistry. Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, inspired intelligent design proponents Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe.

<i>Uncommon Dissent</i>

Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing is a 2004 anthology edited by William A. Dembski in which fifteen intellectuals, eight of whom are leading intelligent design proponents associated with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), criticise "Darwinism" and make a case for intelligent design. It is published by the publishing wing of the paleoconservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The foreword is by John Wilson, editor of the evangelical Christian magazine Christianity Today. The title is a pun on the principle of biology known as common descent. The Discovery Institute is the engine behind the intelligent design movement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns</span> Campaigns which seek to promote intelligent design creationism

The Discovery Institute has conducted a series of related public relations campaigns which seek to promote intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism." The Discovery Institute promotes the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement and is represented by Creative Response Concepts, a public relations firm.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of intelligent design</span> Outline of the topic

This timeline of intelligent design outlines the major events in the development of intelligent design as presented and promoted by the intelligent design movement.

<i>The Edge of Evolution</i>

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism is an intelligent design book by Discovery Institute fellow Michael Behe, published by the Free Press in 2007. Behe argues that while evolution can produce changes within species, there is a limit to the ability of evolution to generate diversity, and this limit is somewhere between species and orders. On this basis, he says that known evolutionary mechanisms cannot be responsible for all the observed diversification from the last universal ancestor and the intervention of an intelligent designer can adequately account for much of the diversity of life. It is Behe's second intelligent design book, his first being Darwin's Black Box.

David W. Snoke is a physics professor at the University of Pittsburgh in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. In 2006 he was elected a Fellow of the American Physical Society "for his pioneering work on the experimental and theoretical understanding of dynamical optical processes in semiconductor systems." In 2004 he co-wrote a controversial paper with prominent intelligent design proponent Michael Behe. In 2007, his research group was the first to report Bose-Einstein condensation of polaritons in a trap. David Snoke and theoretical physicist Jonathan Keeling recently published an article announcing a new era for polariton condensates saying that polaritons are arguably the "...best hope for harnessing the strange effects of quantum condensation and superfluidity in everyday applications."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intelligent design and science</span> Relationship between intelligent design and science

The relationship between intelligent design and science has been a contentious one. Intelligent design (ID) is presented by its proponents as science and claims to offer an alternative to evolution. The Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank and the leading proponent of intelligent design, launched a campaign entitled "Teach the Controversy", which claims that a controversy exists within the scientific community over evolution. The scientific community rejects intelligent design as a form of creationism, and the basic facts of evolution are not a matter of controversy in science.

References

  1. ↑ Nicholas J Matzke (September–October 2004). "Design on Trial in Dover, Pennsylvania | NCSE". National Center for Science Education . Retrieved 2009-07-28. Even Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument (though not the signature phrase) appears in print for the first time in the second edition of Pandas
  2. ↑ Matzke, Nick (Jan 4, 2009). "God of the Gaps…in your own knowledge. Luskin, Behe, & blood-clotting". The Panda's Thumb (blog) . Retrieved 2009-01-05.
  3. ↑ "Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 11, AM: Michael Behe" . Retrieved 2009-07-28.
  4. 1 2 Coyne, J.A. (1996). "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by MJ Behe". Nature . 383 (6597): 227. Bibcode:1996Natur.383..227.. doi: 10.1038/383227b0 . Archived from the original on 2005-03-16.
  5. 1 2 Dawkins, Richard (2007-07-01). "Inferior Design". The New York Times . Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  6. ↑ "Darwin's Black Box | Center for Science and Culture". Archived from the original on 2017-02-25. Retrieved 2013-12-30.
  7. ↑ Publishers Weekly
  8. 1 2 "The 100 best non-fiction books of the century". National Review. Archived from the original on March 4, 2010. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
  9. ↑ "George Gilder, Senior Fellow - Discovery Institute". Discovery Institute . Retrieved January 26, 2014.
  10. 1 2 Dorit, Robert (1997). "A review of Darwin's Black Box". American Scientist. September/October 1997. Retrieved 2009-03-16.
  11. ↑ Orr, H. Allen (December 1996 – January 1997). "Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again): The latest attack on evolution is cleverly argued, biologically informed—and wrong". Boston Review . 22 (6). Archived from the original on June 30, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  12. 1 2 Miller, Kenneth R. (1996). "Darwin's Black Box, reviewed by Kenneth R. Miller". Creation/Evolution. 16: 36–40. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  13. ↑ Myers, Paul (2006-11-22). "Bad books". Pharyngula. Archived from the original (php) on 2008-05-09. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  14. ↑ Robison, Keith (1996-12-11). "Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?". talk.origins . Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  15. ↑ Muller, H. J. (1939). "Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics". Biological Reviews. 14 (3): 261–80. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1939.tb00934.x. S2CID   85668728.
  16. ↑ Behe, Michael (1996-08-16). "Behe Responds to Postings in Talk Origins Newsgroup" . Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  17. ↑ Behe, Michael. "The Sterility of Darwinism". Boston Review . 22 (1). Retrieved 2014-11-09.
  18. ↑ "George Gilder". Discovery Institute.
  19. ↑ Denis O. Lamoureux (July 1999). "A Black Box or a Black Hole? A Response to Michael Behe" (PDF). Canadian Catholic Review. pp. 67–73. Retrieved 2009-02-14.
  20. ↑ Behe, Michael (n.d.). "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26: Disclosure of Expert Testimony of Michael Behe" (PDF). National Center for Science Education . Retrieved 2009-11-06.
  21. ↑ Myers, Paul (2005-10-20). "Behe pwnage". Pharyngula. Archived from the original on May 9, 2008. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  22. ↑ Atchison, Michael (2004-06-11). "Mustard Seeds". Archived from the original on 2007-11-10. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  23. 1 2 Evans, Skip (2005-10-22). "Robert Shapiro on Behe and ID". The Panda's Thumb.
  24. ↑ "Comment on 'Robert Shapiro on Behe and ID'". The Panda's Thumb. 2005-10-24. Archived from the original on 2007-09-30. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  25. ↑ Doolittle, Russell. "A Delicate Balance". Boston Review. Archived from the original on 2004-01-01. Retrieved 2008-12-12. "Originally published in the February/ March 1997 issue of Boston Review"
  26. ↑ Two of Behe's Reviewers Speak Out at the Wayback Machine (archive index)
  27. ↑ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science, p88
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.