Darwin's Black Box

Author	Michael J. Behe
Publisher	Free Press
Publication date	September 1996
Media type	Hardcover/Paperback
ISBN	ISBN 0684827549 ISBN 978-0684827544

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution is a 1996 and 2006 book published by Free Press and written by Michael J. Behe in which he argues that many biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, and thus the result of intelligent design rather than evolutionary processes. Image File history File links Unbalanced_scales. ... Shortcut: WP:NPOVD Articles that have been linked to this page are the subject of an NPOV dispute (NPOV stands for Neutral Point Of View; see below). ... Image File history File links Darwinsblackbox. ... Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952, in Altoona, Pennsylvania) is an American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. ... A publisher is a person or entity which engages in the act of publishing. ... Free Press is an imprint of Simon & Schuster with headquarters in New York City. ... Year 1996 (MCMXCVI) was a leap year starting on Monday (link will display full 1996 Gregorian calendar). ... “ISBN” redirects here. ... Year 1996 (MCMXCVI) was a leap year starting on Monday (link will display full 1996 Gregorian calendar). ... Year 2006 (MMVI) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... Free Press is an imprint of Simon & Schuster with headquarters in New York City. ... Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952, in Altoona, Pennsylvania) is an American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. ... Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument intended to support intelligent design creationism[1] and refute evolution that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or less complete predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations. ... For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation). ... Molecular evolution is the process of the genetic material in populations of organisms changing over time. ...

The book was a source of controversy at the time it was introduced, as many in the scientific community consider intelligent design and its constituent arguments to be pseudoscience. Common criticisms were that Behe's ideas are not falsifiable, that his definition of an irreducibly complex system is ambiguous, and that he ignores previous work in biochemical evolution. Though influential within the intelligent design movement for several years, the book has lost some of its currency as more and more examples given by Behe as evidence of irreducible complexity have been shown to be explicable by known evolutionary mechanisms, something Behe conceded under cross examination while testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the defendants in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. This article does not cite any references or sources. ... A typical 18th century phrenology chart. ... This page discusses how a theory or assertion is falsifiable (disprovable opp: verifiable), rather than the non-philosophical use of falsification, meaning counterfeiting. ... The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist religious campaign that calls for broad social, academic and political changes derived from the concept of intelligent design. ... Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. ...

Overview

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. Black box is technical jargon for a device or system or object when it is viewed primarily in terms of its input and output characteristics. ...

Behe begins by reminding the general reader of revolutionary developments in the history of science: "When foundations are unearthed, the structures that rest upon them are shaken; sometimes they collapse. When sciences such as physics finally uncovered their foundations, old ways of understanding the world had to be tossed out, extensively revised, or restricted to a limited part of nature." His idea popularizes the idea of revolutionary science presented in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). Behe suggests that this is now the case in biology due to discoveries in biochemistry. Behe notes the acceptance of Darwinism by "the great majority" of scientists, and states that "most (though not all) do so based on authority." Paradigm shift is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. ... Thomas Samuel Kuhn (pronounced )(July 18, 1922 – June 17, 1996) was an American intellectual who wrote extensively on the history of science and developed several important notions in the philosophy of science. ... To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ...

He then notes that proposed elucidations of the evolutionary history of various biological features typically assume the existence of certain abilities as their starting point. As an example, he gives Darwin's explanation of how the eye evolved, which begins with light-sensitive spots, which then develop in depressions of increasing depth, which are then covered by a gelatinous material, which then becomes a lens, etc. Behe points out that Darwin dismissed the need to explain the origin of the "simple" light-sensitive spot; he then follows with his own five-paragraph of the modern understanding of the biochemistry of vision. He claims that many other evolutionary explanations face a similar challenge. For other uses, see Eye (disambiguation). ...

The concept of irreducible complexity is then introduced and defined by Behe as "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." As a simple example, he offers the typical household mousetrap, with its wooden platform, wire "hammer," spring, catch, and holding bar. John McDonald, in response to this example, presented "A reducibly complex mousetrap" which would still function with fewer components, though increasingly ineffectively^[1]. In defense of the mousetrap example, Behe claimed that McDonald's reduced-component traps are not single-step intermediates in the building of the mousetrap he demonstrated.^[2]. Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument intended to support intelligent design creationism[1] and refute evolution that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or less complete predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations. ... For other uses, see Mousetrap (disambiguation). ...

Next, Behe devotes several chapters to particular biological mechanisms: the cilium, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, gated and vesicular transport within the cell, and the immune system. In each case, Behe claims that the underlying biochemical mechanisms are vastly under-appreciated, and that they, in fact, constitute instances of irreducible complexity. He states that other examples abound, and identifies several more. Not to be confused with Psyllium. ... For the insect anatomical structure, see Antenna (biology). ... Coagulation is the thickening or congealing of any liquid into solid clots. ... A vesicular transport protein is a membrane protein which use vesicles to move the contents of the cell. ... A scanning electron microscope image of a single neutrophil (yellow), engulfing anthrax bacteria (orange). ...

Behe anticipates and attempts to address one of the primary counter-arguments: "Perhaps [at] some point several parts that were being used for other purposes suddenly came together to produce a [different function]." He states that an "exhaustive consideration of all possible roles for a particular component can't be done [but] it is extremely implausible that components used for other purposes fortuitously adapted to new roles in a complex system." He further states that "the focus simply shifts from 'making' the components to 'modifying' them."

Behe recounts what he says are his unsuccessful attempts to discover elucidations in scientific journals of evolutionary pathways for any complex biochemical systems. Although he does identify "assertions that such evolution occurred, absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations."

He concludes the book by offering intelligent design as an explanation of irreducible complexity. For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation). ...

Reception in the scientific community

Darwin's Black Box was not well received by the scientific community, who overwhelming rejected Behe's premise and failed to adopt his methods.

Jerry Coyne, reviewing Darwin's Black Box in the September 19, 1996 edition of Nature, said: Jerry Coyne is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. ... Nature is a prominent scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869. ...

"...a work of advocacy whose creationist ancestry is revealed by both its rhetoric and its failure to deal honestly with the evidence for evolution. There is the usual selective quotation of evolutionists (including, to my horror, a remark of my own, both altered and taken out of context), ridicule of scientists, and a folksy 'us-against-them' style reflecting the populist roots of creationism. The book will no doubt be widely cited by Biblical creationists who will tout its message of design while ignoring its timid acceptance of evolution and its view of the creator as Cosmic Prankster."^[3]

In his review Keith Robison of Harvard said:

"I would characterize Behe's book as an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance: what do we not know, and how can we blind ourselves with that lack of knowledge.... Indeed, that is the whole thesis of Behe's book. A system is labeled "irreducibly complex" if he cannot postulate a workable simpler form for the system. There is no way to prove such a claim. All we can do is look at the facts and logic presented, and judge whether it makes sense. Whether the logic is correct is another matter entirely. Indeed, this series of postings is intended to illuminate specific examples of where such reasoning is wrong. And it is often wrong because Behe has failed to present the full picture; we are not shown crucial facts which point out the failings in the logic."^[4]

Peter Atkins of the University of Oxford in his review described Darwin's Black Box as well written but deceptive and error-filled, saying:

"I learned a huge amount from it (I think), and it was only my wary eye that held me back from slipping along with the argument. Moreover, here we have a real, and very competent (but deeply misguided) scientist purveying some very good science and pointing up some very important omissions in our current understanding. Dr. Behe and his book must be as gold-dust among the dross of the general run of creationists and their so-called literature. The general reader will not know the limitations of his argument, or be aware of his misrepresentations of the facts, and will easily be seduced by his arguments. After all, it seems so very much easier, and certainly avoids a lot of intellectual effort, to accept that God did it all, even though we have to interpret the carefully coded allusions to this incompetent figment of impoverished imaginations."^[5]

PZ Myers wrote: Paul Zachary PZ Myers (born March 9, 1957) is an American biology professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris and a science blogger via his blog, Pharyngula. ...

"I think Behe's Darwin's Black Box definitely deserves a place on the list [Discover Magazine's Ten worst science books^[6]], as an example of pseudoscientific dreck that has been enormously influential, giving new life and a veneer of respectability to creationism."^[7]

Richard Dawkins dismissed the book as logically flawed: Clinton Richard Dawkins (born March 26, 1941) is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. ...

"In "Darwin's Black Box," Behe simply asserted without justification that particular biological structures (like the bacterial flagellum, the tiny propeller by which bacteria swim) needed all their parts to be in place before they would work, and therefore could not have evolved incrementally. This style of argument remains as unconvincing as when Darwin himself anticipated it. It commits the logical error of arguing by default. Two rival theories, A and B, are set up. Theory A explains loads of facts and is supported by mountains of evidence. Theory B has no supporting evidence, nor is any attempt made to find any. Now a single little fact is discovered, which A allegedly can't explain. Without even asking whether B can explain it, the default conclusion is fallaciously drawn: B must be correct. Incidentally, further research usually reveals that A can explain the phenomenon after all: thus the biologist Kenneth R. Miller (a believing Christian who testified for the other side in the Dover trial) beautifully showed how the bacterial flagellar motor could evolve via known functional intermediates."^[8]

Peer review controversy

In 2005, while testifying for the defense in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Michael Behe claimed under oath that Darwin's Black Box received even more thorough peer review than a scholarly article in a refereed journal.^[9] Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. ... Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the awarding of funding for research. ...

Behe's testimony has resulted in controversy as it appears to be in direct conflict with known facts about the book's peer review. Four of the book's five reviewers — Michael Atchison, Robert Shapiro, K. John Morrow, and Russell Doolittle — made statements that contradict or otherwise do not support Behe's claim of Darwin's Black Box having passed a rigorous peer review process.

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.^[10] Robert Shapiro has said that he did review the book, and while he agreed with some of its analysis of origin-of-life research, he thinks its conclusions are false. He did, however, say that he thought that Behe's book was the best explanation of the argument from design that was available.^[11] K. John Morrow criticised the book as appalling and unsupported, which contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.^[12] And Dr. Russell Doolittle, whose own work on blood clotting Behe based much of the arguments in Darwin's Black Box on reviewed the book and described it as misrepresenting many important points and disingenuous, which also contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.^[13]

In the same trial, Behe also 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".^[14] The result of the trial was the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

References

John William Horgan (15 July 1834–8 July 1907) was a Member of the Western Australian Legislative Council in 1888–89. ... Paul Zachary PZ Myers (born March 9, 1957) is an American biology professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris and a science blogger via his blog, Pharyngula. ... Pharyngula is a weblog run by PZ Myers, listed by the science journal Nature as the top-ranked blog written by a scientist. ... Clinton Richard Dawkins (born March 26, 1941) is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. ... Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. ... For other uses, see The Pandas Thumb. ... For other uses, see The Pandas Thumb. ...

External links

• The publisher's webpage for Darwin's Black Box
• Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology Brown University: an analytic and critical review
• John McDonald, University of Delaware, "A reducibly complex mousetrap" supplements what he calls philosophical flaws in Behe's argument with a vivid demonstration
• a biochemists response to the "biochemical challenge to evolution
• H. Allen Orr, "Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again)". Boston Review, Dec 1996/Jan 1997.
• Robert Dorit, A Review of Darwin's Black Box. American Scientist, Sep/Oct 1997
• Behe responds to critical reviews