BOOK REVIEW
doi:10.1111/evo.13710
Evolution unscathed: Darwin Devolves argues on weak reasoning that unguided evolution is a destructive force, incapable of innovation
Gregory I. Lang1 and Amber M. Rice1,2 1Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015 2E-mail: [email protected]
Received February 27, 2019 Accepted March 1, 2019
Review of Behe, Michael J. Darwin Devolves: The New Science his views do not stand up to scientific or legal scrutiny. In his 2005 About DNA that Challenges Evolution. (2019; HarperOne; New decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge John York, NY; 352 pp.; $28.99; ISBN: 9780062842619). E. Jones III roundly rejected Behe’s views, writing “[W]e have Academic buildings can be quirky places. Like proteins they addressed the seminal question of whether ID [Intelligent Design] evolve, adapting to new functions while holding on to traces of is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that their past, occasionally performing tasks that are in conflict with ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, one another. Iacocca Hall is no exception. Once home to the re- antecedents.” (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 2005) search and development division of Bethlehem Steel, the moun- Nevertheless, Behe is undeterred in his convictions and continues taintop building now houses Lehigh University’s Department of to refine his view of life’s history. Biological Sciences. The most infamous (among scientists) and The brand of creationism promulgated by Michael Behe is celebrated (among creationists) of our 22 faculty is Michael Behe, unique: closer to the scientific consensus than most. For example, a well-known proponent of intelligent design and a tenured mem- Behe fully accepts that all organisms share a genealogical history. ber of our department who recently released his third book, Dar- In his previous book, The Edge of Evolution (Behe 2007), he win Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges writes that “distantly related organisms share apparently arbitrary Evolution (HarperOne, 2019, 352 pp.). features of their genes that seem to have no explanation other than Michael Behe gained notoriety in the mid-1990s after the that they were inherited from a distant common ancestor (p3).” publication of Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996), in which he Regarding our closest cousins, “[i]t’s hard to imagine how there advanced a molecular version of the theologian William Paley’s could be stronger evidence for the common ancestry of chimps Watchmaker argument for design and introduced the concept of and humans (p72).” irreducible complexity: the notion that extant cellular systems are Where Behe breaks with the scientific consensus is that he comprised of many interdependent parts, and thus are extremely rejects that random mutation and natural selection alone are ca- unlikely to have evolved step-wise by random processes. Because pable of producing new molecular functions. Instead, he invokes of his visibility—stemming from the commercial success of Dar- an intelligent designer: an agent behind the scenes who deliber- win’s Black Box, his academic credentials, and his testimony in the ately and methodically supplies new mutations (the “purposeful 2005 Kitzmiller trial in Dover, Pennsylvania—Behe has become arrangement of parts”), thus allowing life to successfully navigate the de facto leader of the Intelligent Design movement. unlikely evolutionary paths. Natural selection acting on random Idolized within the intelligent design movement, Behe has degenerative mutations can account for diversification at the genus cultivated a retinue of ardent supporters, but when tested publicly and species levels, according to Behe; however, “descendants that