The Edge of Evolution

Last updated
The Edge of Evolution
Edge of Evolution cover page.jpg
Cover
Author Michael Behe
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Subject Intelligent design
Publisher Free Press
Publication date
June 5, 2007
Media typePrint (Hardcover)
Audiobook
Pages336
ISBN 0-7432-9620-6
OCLC 136958644
576.8/2 22
LC Class QH367.3 .B44 2007

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 (the "edge of evolution") 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 .

Contents

While the book has been well received by creationists and non-biologists, [1] [2] reviews by certain scientists, especially those working in the field of biology, have been highly critical of Behe's methods, information and conclusions in the book. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Contents

Behe begins the book with an observation that the theory of evolution consists of a coherent relationship of three related ideas: common descent, natural selection, and random mutation. He continues by stating he believes they are distinct ideas, with implications for the theory as a whole; common descent and natural selection he accepts without question but questions the scope and power of random mutation to produce beneficial mutations that lead to novel, useful structures and processes. He terms "Darwinian evolution" the type of evolution relying on all three of these factors, applies the label "Darwinists" to scientists who hold the view that Darwinian evolution is the only existing form of evolution, and who take exception to intelligent design as well as other theistic and non-theistic complexity theories.

Behe's central assertion regarding Darwinian evolution is that it exists, but that it is better at disturbing existing metabolic pathways (referred to as 'molecular machinery') than making new ones, and therefore plays only a limited role in the development and diversification of life on Earth. He examines the genetic changes undergone by the malaria plasmodium genome and the human genome in response to each other's biological defenses, and identifies that "the situation resembles trench warfare, not an arms race". He contrasts this hemoglobin-destroying, protein pump-compromising "war by attrition" with the "creative process" required to develop complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum as well as stupendously complex systems such as the immune system.

Behe calculates the "edge of evolution" - the point at which Darwinian evolution is no longer an efficacious agent of creative biological change - by taking into account the number of mutations required to "travel" from one genetic state to another, as well as population size for the organism in question. He concludes that purposeful design plays a major role in the development of biological complexity, through the mechanism of producing "non-random mutations", which are then subjected to the sculpting hand of natural selection.

Design that favors the development of intelligent life, argues Behe, is not only demanded by "the most recent findings concerning biological complexity", but also by discoveries in the fields of chemistry (he uses the example of the peculiar, life-supporting structure of water), and of cosmology (referring to the anthropic principle).

Behe argues strongly for common descent of all lifeforms on earth, including that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. He states that there is such overwhelming evidence for common ancestry that it should not only be obvious, but "trivial". Behe claims that the mutations required for bridging the higher levels of taxonomy are not possible without design, and that this is the "edge of evolution". The argument hinges on the low probability of an organism having two or more simultaneous mutations to yield some advantage for the organism and large numbers of microbial organisms achieving little in the way of evolving new proteins and binding sites. [3]

Behe acknowledges his support for intelligent design represents a minority view within the scientific community, alluding to his awareness of this fact several times in the book. He implies that for this reason, he avoids detailed discussion about the nature of life's designer, and takes deliberate steps to distinguish himself from the Young Earth creationism movement.

Reviews

Reviews by scientists, especially those working in the field of biology, have been highly critical with Behe's methods, information and conclusions being rejected, [4] [5] [6] [7] though some reviews from creationists and some biologists have been more positive. [1] [2]

Negative reviews

University of Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins reviewed the book, concentrating his criticism on Behe's claim that random mutation, rather than nonrandom natural selection, was the driving force behind evolution. He also criticized Behe's claim that no amount of random mutation could bring about the diversity of life in existence today by pointing to several examples of selective breeding. Dawkins also states that Behe had failed to connect with the scientific research on his topic, that Behe's work would not pass the peer-review of a scientific journal and that Behe bypassed the peer-review process by publishing a popular book solely for a public, rather than scientific, audience. [4]

The Edge of Evolution was reviewed, by prominent biologists, in The New Republic , Science and Nature with similar comments - that Behe appears to accept almost all of evolutionary theory, barring random mutation, which is replaced with guided mutation at the hand of an unnamed designer. [5] [6] [7]

Other reviews have criticized Behe for misleading quote mining, [8] failing to offer a theory of intelligent design despite a ten-year gap since Darwin's Black Box , [9] a logical contradiction between design and 'unbroken natural law', [9] an erroneous model [10] and ignoring publications and information that contradicts his theory. [10] Singled out for specific criticism included the use of irrelevant calculations as sources, his assertion of the necessity of simultaneous mutations when evidence supports cumulative mutations, and ignoring the scientific literature on protein evolution. [11]

Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy at Florida State University, found the book to contain no developments beyond what was offered in Darwin's Black Box , repeating arguments, ignoring and dismissing opposing arguments without analysis; [12] comments echoed by others. [11]

Dennis Venema, a Christian biology professor at Trinity Western University and a fellow of the Biologos Foundation, recalls that Behe's book convinced him that Intelligent Design was bad science: "when Behe began to discuss a topic I was familiar with (population genetics) I confirmed what I suspected: Behe was out of his area of specialty and out of his depth." [13]

Positive reviews

Historian of religion [14] Cameron Wybrow wrote a review of Edge of Evolution published in The Philadelphia Inquirer , stating that the book "provides some hard numbers, coupled with an ingenious argument". [2] Additionally a review in The Christian Post by minister Chuck Colson recommends it, noting "Even if you do not agree with everything in it, as I do not, you do not need to follow the Darwinist line that everything you disagree with must be squashed." [15]

Responses and scientific criticism

Behe has replied to some of his critics on his blog at Amazon.com. [16] Behe's critics have suggested that these responses have sidestepped scientific criticisms [17] [18]

In response to criticism by Abbie Smith and Ian Musgrave, Behe agreed that his claim that HIV had evolved no new protein binding sites was incorrect and that at least one such binding site had evolved on the Vpu viroporin protein but Behe argued that the mistake did not alter the validity of his argument. [18] [19] [20]

On The Panda's Thumb blog Ian Musgrave has stated that the book's "core concept ... that protein–protein binding sites are extremely unlikely to have developed by natural means" is undermined by a recent Science article [21] whose authors were "able to produce strong protein–protein binding in many cases with a single mutation." Musgrave concludes: [22]

Behe greatly overestimates the difficulty of developing a binding site, ignores the fact that the majority of 10,000 binding sites in modern vertebrates are duplicate copies of each other, with there being only a much smaller number of basic binding motifs and ignores the fact that most of these basic binding motifs were developed in rapidly dividing single celled organisms with very large populations.

Far from protein–protein binding pointing to an unknown designer, protein binding sites point directly to descent with modification and the "tinkering" of natural selection.

Related Research Articles

Intelligent design A pseudoscientific argument for 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, so it is not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

Irreducible complexity Argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved

Irreducible complexity (IC) involves the idea that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection. Irreducible complexity has become central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but the scientific community, which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience, rejects the concept of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent-design proponents, alongside specified complexity.

Michael Behe American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate

Michael J. Behe is an American biochemist, author, and 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 that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was not science and was religious in nature.

John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells is an American biologist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design. Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism." The term Darwinism is often used by intelligent design proponents and other creationists to refer to the scientific consensus on evolution. He gained a PhD in religious studies at Yale University in 1986, then became Director of the Unification Church’s inter-religious outreach organization in New York City. In 1989, he studied at the University of California, Berkeley, where he earned a PhD in molecular and cellular biology in 1994. He became a member of several scientific associations and has published in academic journals.

Stephen C. Meyer American Intelligent design advocate

Stephen C. Meyer is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement. Before joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College. Meyer is a Senior Fellow of the DI and Director of the CSC.

<i>Darwins Black Box</i> book by Michael Behe

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution 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", 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.

<i>Of Pandas and People</i> school-level textbook promoting intelligent design

Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins is a controversial 1989 school-level 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—namely 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.

Intelligent designer Hypothetical willed and self-aware entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development 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.

Kansas evolution hearings

The Kansas evolution hearings were a series of hearings held in Topeka, Kansas, United States from May 5 to 12, 2005 by the Kansas State Board of Education and its State Board Science Hearing Committee to change how evolution and the origin of life would be taught in the state's public high school science classes. The hearings were arranged by the Board of Education with the intent of introducing intelligent design into science classes via the Teach the Controversy method.

<i>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District</i> The first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design creationism

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. 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 degree in biochemistry. Denton’s book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, inspired intelligent design proponents Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe.

<i>Creationisms Trojan Horse</i> book by Barbara Forrest

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design is a 2004 book by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross on the origins of intelligent design, specifically the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and its wedge strategy. The authors are highly critical of what they refer to as intelligent design creationism, and document the intelligent design movement's fundamentalist Christian origins and funding.

<i>Evolution: A Theory in Crisis</i> book by Michael Denton

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is a 1985 book by Michael Denton, in which the author argues that the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection is a "theory in crisis". Reviews by scientists say that the book distorts and misrepresents evolutionary theory and contains numerous errors.

<i>Darwinism, Design and Public Education</i> book by John Angus Campbell

Darwinism, Design and Public Education is a 2003 anthology, consisting largely of rewritten versions of essays from a 1998 issue of Michigan State University Press's journal, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, edited by intelligent design activists John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, neither of whom are scientists. The book is promoted as being a "peer-reviewed science book", however in reviewing it Barbara Forrest notes that:

<i>Uncommon Dissent</i> book by William A. Dembski

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.

Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns 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.

Timeline of intelligent design timeline

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>Explore Evolution</i> book by Stephen C. Meyer

Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism is a controversial biology textbook written by a group of intelligent design supporters and published in 2007. Its promoters describe it as aimed at helping educators and students to discuss "the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory that are discussed openly in scientific books and journals but which are not widely reported in textbooks." As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to "teach the controversy" its evident purpose is to provide a "lawsuit-proof" way of attacking evolution and promoting pseudoscientific creationism without being explicit.

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."

References

  1. 1 2 Snoke, David (2007). Editorial Review of The Edge of Evolution. ISBN   978-0743296205.
  2. 1 2 3 Wybrow, Cameron (2007-08-19). "Pa. scientist again attacks evolution". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2007-09-13. Retrieved 2007-11-03.
  3. 1 2 Review of The Edge of Evolution by Michael J Behe, New York: Free Press, 2007, 320 pages, David E Levin, Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 27 (1-2): 38-40, March 2007
  4. 1 2 3 Dawkins, Richard (July 1, 2007). "Inferior Design". New York Times . Retrieved 2007-07-29.
  5. 1 2 3 Coyne, Jerry (July 1, 2007). "The Great Mutator". The New Republic. Archived from the original on June 12, 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-29.
  6. 1 2 3 Carroll, Sean (2007-07-08). "Evolution: God as Genetic Engineer". Science. 316 (5830): 1427–8. doi:10.1126/science.1145104 . Retrieved 2007-09-19.
  7. 1 2 3 Miller, Kenneth R. (28 June 2007). "Falling over the edge". Nature. 447 (7148): 1055–1056. doi:10.1038/4471055a.
  8. ↑ Rosenhouse, Jason (June 21, 2007). "Quote Mining in EoE". ScienceBlogs . Retrieved 2007-07-29.
  9. 1 2 Korthof, Gert (2007-07-22). "Either Design or Common Descent: A review of 'The edge of evolution'" . Retrieved 2007-09-19.
  10. 1 2 Gross, Paul R. (2007-10-01). "Design for living" (PDF). The New Criterion.
  11. 1 2 Matzke, Nick (2007-06-05). "Of cilia and silliness (more on Behe)". The Panda's Thumb.
  12. ↑ Ruse, Michael (2007-06-02). "Design? Maybe. Intelligent? We have our doubts". The Globe and Mail.
  13. ↑ Venema, Dennis. "From Intelligent Design to BioLogos, Part 4: Reading Behe". Biologos Foundation . Retrieved 2014-02-20.
  14. ↑ "Cameron Wybrow's dissertation listing". McMaster University. 1990. Retrieved 2007-11-05.
  15. ↑ Chuck Colson (2007-10-20). "What Darwinism Can't Do:The Edge of Evolution". Christian Post. Retrieved 2007-11-18.
  16. ↑ Behe, Michael (2007). Behe's blog at Amazon.com. ISBN   978-0743296205.
  17. ↑ Matzke, Nick (2007-11-06). "Behe 'replies' to TREE review". The Panda's Thumb.
  18. 1 2 Musgrave, Ian (2007-10-22). "An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe". The Panda's Thumb.
  19. ↑ Musgrave, Ian (2007-11-16). "An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe (Part 7)". The Panda's Thumb . Retrieved 2007-11-18.
  20. ↑ Michael Behe (2007-11-15). "Response to Ian Musgrave's "Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe," Part 4". Michael Behe's Blog. uncommondescent.com. Retrieved 2012-04-01.
  21. ↑ Grueninger D, Treiber N, Ziegler MO, Koetter JW, Schulze MS, Schulz GE (2008). "Designed protein-protein association". Science . 319 (5860): 206–209. doi:10.1126/science.1150421. PMID   18187656.
  22. ↑ Behe versus ribonuclease; the origin and evolution of protein–protein binding sites, Ian Musgrave, The Panda's Thumb April 13, 2008
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.