Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

by Michael J. Behe The Free Press, New York

Reviewed by Thane Hutcherson Ury

7 cannot look at the universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of any kind, in the details.' Charles Darwin, letter, July 12, 1870.

We know a lot more about animals and plants than Darwin did, and still not a single case is known to me of a complex organ that could not have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications. I do not believe that such a case will ever be found. If it is . . . I shall cease to believe in Darwinism.' several well-matched, interacting Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 91. parts that contribute to the basic function, where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system Periodically a book is catapulted Behe has the enviable quality of to effectively cease functioning.'2 on the scene that commands the hooking the reader right off the bat, and Such systems are an aggregate of attention of all factions in the creation/ writing in an engaging, if not mutually dependent parts, all of which evolution debate. Michael Behe's entertaining, fashion. The text is are simultaneously necessary for Darwin's Black Box is just such a text. peppered with vivid, novice-friendly system functionality. Such symbiotic Behe, professor of Biochemistry at analogies, and provides intermittent in- simultaneity militates against any Lehigh University, Bethlehem, text 'technical demarcations' for those notion of gradual increases in Pennsylvania, has breathed new life wishing to go deeper. To make biochemical complexity vis-a vis into the design argument and complex thought accessible to the piecemeal incrementalism, since articulated an innovative critique of masses is quite a feat; the fact that natural selection is impotent prior to Darwinism which is as sure to fluster Behe does it so effortlessly, irenically minimal function. Irreducible Darwinians, as it is to delight Biblical and with such devastating clarity, complexity, therefore, is a bare- creationists. As with all of history's guarantees his being placed on the knuckled challenge to the heart and gadflies, Behe's apologetic is causing evolutionists' hit list for wholesale soul of Darwinism.3 Darwin himself quite a stir. When a rigid practitioner castigation.1 Whether the method- laid down the gauntlet: of scientific methodology is accused ological naturalists can actually 'If it could be demonstrated that of heresy by his colleagues, there can answer Behe, however, rather than any complex organ existed which be assurance of garnering lots of feigning rational engagement, is quite could not possibly have been attention in the public square. Since another matter. formed by numerous, successive, the book first appeared last year, it is The central thesis of Darwin's slight modifications, my theory enjoying its eighth printing, has been Black Box is that life is characterised would absolutely break down.'4 the object of both praise and by irreducibly complex biochemical Behe picks up the challenge, and his excoriation in nearly a hundred systems. By irreducible complexity, entire book is a response to Darwin's, reviews, and has been hotly debated on Behe means, pinpointing specifically where his radio shows and the internet. 'a single system composed of theory could be falsified. CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 3, 1997 283 PALEY'S WATCH AT THE inability of anyone in his day to which is light years away from MOLECULAR LEVEL comprehend its astonishing contents. substantiating one step up 'Mt But with recent technological Improbable'.6 The paucity in the Behe begins his case with a advances, the box's 'content' has professional journals of falsifiable thumbnail sketch of Darwin's thought, yielded a mind-boggling complexity, explanations for complex systems and how it laid the groundwork for of which modern Darwinians can should not only cause the Darwinians modernity's creed that inorganic visually access, comprehend and to blush, but indicates how much these material gave rise to living matter, and assess the implications. Whereas 'peer reviewed' periodicals traffic in subsequently progressed up the great Darwin might be contextually 'hand-waving', partisan metaphysics. chain of being entirely by natural pardoned on this particular, modernity Those familiar with the pre- processes. The central purpose of is without excuse for any studied Darwinian apologetic of William Paley Darwin's Black Box is to demonstrate disregard of the box's accoutrements. will find many parallel threads in Behe. that Darwinism has been ill prepared Now that the lid of this black box has Paley fine-tuned a subset of the design to explain the paradigm-paralysing been pried open, inviting us to peek argument, called the 'argument from phenomena culled from recent inside, we encounter a flabbergasting perfection'.1 Darwin didn't answer breakthroughs in biochemistry. With array of intricate, synergistically Paley adequately,8 and probably his pen acting like a surgeon's scalpel, complex design.5 counted on readers of The Origin Behe points out that evolutionary Behe asks if the Darwinian rubric doing likewise. Modern readers, theory, in its Darwinian phase, was able of natural selection, before which however, have no excuse, for according to weather much initial scientific modern science feels obligated to to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, criticism due to a rather crude remove its sandals, can account for 'The Speculations of The Origin understanding of cells. In Darwin's day 'irreducible complexity' of lilliputian of Species turned out to be wrong it was assumed that the cell was biological phenomena. Those familiar .... It is ironic that the scientific nothing but a 'simple little lump of with the tactics of Gould, Dawkins, facts throw Darwin out, but leave albuminous carbon '. Such an Dennett, Kauffrnan, et al., already William Paley, a figure of fun to understatement was not necessarily know these polemicists for naturalism the scientific world for more than indicative of lack of empirical integrity, will claim their positions can meet a century, well in the tournament but merely a barometer of consensus Behe's challenge regarding irreducible with a chance of being the ultimate prior to breakthroughs in biochemistry complexity. But judicious note should winner!9 and the advent of the electron be taken as to whether such responses But if contemporary Darwinists would microscope. Molecular complexity are based on hard-nosed empirical scientifically engage Paley at this was literally incomprehensible in the science, or merely theory laden, 'fact- point, rather than caricatures, they latter half of the nineteenth century. free' scientism, dressed up in prestige should see that he adroitly pre-nullified Thus, in Darwin's day, the cell was jargon. any notion of undirected increment- a 'black box'. Behe claims that the Behe points out that among the alism. Yet the predisposition today is history of science has been a chain of thousands of articles in technical to find any weak link in Paley's black boxes. This Behean metaphor journals related to biochemical adjacent assertions, which then serves refers to any device which performs a evolution, there is an eerie absence of as a diversion to not have to take marvellous function, but whose inner papers which actually provide an seriously his specific challenge. Since mechanism[s] remain mysterious. It empirically plausible scenario as to the that strategy has been effective for 138 would be comparable to a child playing origin and increase of irreducible, years, watch for it to be employed a computer game on the internet, while biomolecular complexity; ones which against Behe's thesis as well. utterly oblivious of the 64 megabytes genuinely grapple with incipient forms of RAM, 12X CD-ROM, Pentium and molecular transitional bridges. He EXAMINING THE CONTENTS chip, multi-gigabyte hard drive, etc. found instead what true science should OF THE BOX hidden in the box on Daddy's desk. The see, and what pseudo-science child knows how the game is played, desperately hopes can be kept from To illustrate that life is irreducibly but does not have the foggiest clue how public comprehension; that prestigious complex, and therefore designed, Behe the game works. And even if he is scientific journals are glutted with 'just takes the reader on a microscopic shown the components, they too would so' articles, amounting to nothing more expedition through the following become 'black boxes'. Darwin's than fraternal order question-begging, mechanisms: inability to access the box's content where the very things that have to be (1) the marvels of vision, (that is, the cell's complexity) stemmed proved are merely assumed a priori. (2) bombardier beetle ballistics, not only from an inability to visually The vast majority of articles fail to rise (3) bacterial flagella, access the inner sanctum of the box, above the level of 'sequence (4) the blood clotting process, but even more so from the sheer comparisons in protein molecules'; (5) intracellular transport, and 284 CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 3, 1997 (6) disease immunity. has been opened, it is no longer can possibly comprehend). Com­ These each display different enough for an evolutionary pounding matters to the point of tears, aspects of irreducible complexity, explanation of that power to contemporary evolutionists are molecular cascading, and symbiosis of consider only the anatomical committed to believing that the eye biochemical systems, and veto structures of whole eyes, as must have evolved at least 40 separate Darwinian gradualism in that natural Darwin did in the nineteenth times!14 What Herculean restraint must selection is emasculated; that is, the century (and as popularizers of Christians make to keep a straight face incipient stages cannot even be evolution continue to do today). when they are mocked for exercising conceptualised, much less in a way that Each of the anatomical steps and a blind faith. Believing that something would confer selective advantage. structures that Darwin thought seemingly 'absurd in the highest were so simple actually involves possible degree' happened 40 times is A 'Light-Sensitive Spot' staggeringly complicated bio- not exactly convincing, even if Darwin Vision was a black box for chemical processes that cannot be and Dawkins think they have the Darwin. It should not be for Oxford papered over with rhetoric.'10 solution. The power of the paradigm zoologist, Richard Dawkins; but he Dawkins adamantly preaches that is so intoxicating that many do not seems to be equally in the dark. one per cent of an eye is better than realise that evolutionary theory not Through nothing more than the rhetoric none. But, no matter how crude the only conveys no knowledge, but of 'Mt Improbable', he has convinced 'light-sensitive spot', the logic of this somehow seems to convey anti- many that sight evolved through a beginning should be plainly obvious. knowledge.15 series of speculative infinitesimal Like Darwin, Dawkins is asking us to Contemporary non-theistic increments. But in the wake of recent start with an eye to get an eye. scientists (and not a few theistic biochemistry, Behe asks: 'Are they Describing it as 'crude' merely evolutionists) are so busy accusing infinitesimal?' Just like Darwin, disguises the tautology. Dawkins adds creationists of invoking the 'God-of- Dawkins smuggles in an allegedly complex systems to complex systems the-gaps', that they hardly seem primitive 'light-sensitive spot' from the and baptizes this an explanation.11 scandalised by the gaps they have to beginning. But given such a flare for Clearly this does not follow. Dawkins fill and the gargantuan special- the a priori, he 'almost always can spin can have blind faith in blind chance, pleading axioms necessary for their a story', to achieve present complexity. but let us move this type of belief out theory 'to catch fire' and account for Behe spells out the details of what of the halls of science and back into vast saltations of information-bearing needs to take place for vision: creative writing. complexity, 'which give the appearance 'Initially photons interact with 11- Dawkins' light sensitive spot of having been designed'. Among cis-retinal molecules, which (purely hypothetical to begin with) other things, they invoke: reconfigure to trans-retinal in would still be (1) a highly non-equilibrious 'open' picoseconds. This catalyzes a 'a multi-celled organ, each of system subject to continual influx metamorphosis and behavior whose cells makes the complexity of matter and energy; modification in the protein of a motorcycle or television set (2) the presence of several catalytic, rhodopsin, which is now called look paltry in comparison.'12 cross-catalytic, or feedback metarhodopsin II, which sticks to Darwin's reflection on the seeming processes to insure that the transducin, another protein. Just improbability of a full eye forming by description of system kinetics will prior to this union, transducin chance would be applauded by Behe, include non-linear differential tightly binds a molecule called and could be applied to Dawkins' equations; and GDP. . .' palaeo-optics with equal effect: (3) the imposition of specifically And so it goes for several pages, 'To suppose that the eye, with all defined values and constraints to though one gets the impression this is its inimitable contrivances for foster growth while fending off that just scratching the surface. Yet adjusting the focus to different nasty theory-buster called Dawkins has a penchant for side- distances, for admitting different entropy.16 stepping the cascade of unbelievably amounts of light, and for the When Behe calls attention to such complex factors necessary for even correction of spherical and special pleading, 'fact-free science', something as rudimentary as mere light chromatic aberration, could have and asks where the observational facts detection. And in fastidiously turning been formed by natural selection, are, this is considered in poor taste, if a blind eye to relevant details, which seems, I freely confess, absurd in not anathema. With inquisitional trip up 'just so' stories, Dawkins the highest possible degree.'13 determination, Darwinists will do ironically exhibits the very And to augment this absurdity whatever to keep dissenters on the rack. fundamentalists fideism he deplores. even more, vision is far more complex And they can hardly be blamed, for Behe tightens the noose further: than Darwin could have dreamed (and who of sound mind would want to 'Now that the black box of vision I believe more complex than even Behe defend the hidden premises of CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 3, 1997 285 Darwinism in a court of scientific law channel, reminiscent of a turret, Behe jumping the gun here? Who where evidence is actually required? aimed deftly at would-be knows what future technology will be predators. like? While present black boxes are Bombardier Pyrotechnics Only with extreme slow motion sufficient to elicit the design inference, Behe takes the famous bombardier videography can we witness the it may be premature to put the lid on beetle and updates a page straight out machine-gun-like 'pulsating', pinpoint future discoveries of what may be of the creationists' play book. When accurate shooting of the beetle. Behe incomprehensible at present. threatened by a predator, the beetle does not even have to elaborate on the Second, defends itself by squirting a caustic, (at least) four metabolic processes 'as the number of required parts scalding liquid from its posterior. Behe simultaneously taking place, nor increases, the difficulty of wants his readers, especially detractors, mention other anatomical support, or gradually putting the system to eventually ask: the crucial aspect of synchronisation, together skyrockets, and the 'How much of the beetle squirting etc. The design inference is clear for likelihood of indirect scenarios apparatus can be removed while those who are open-minded. plummets'19 still preserving its functional If no physical, functional precursors integrity?' Bacterial Swimming Lessons can be posited for even a simple five Once reduced to its bare essentials Behe next meticulously unpacks piece machine (that is, a mousetrap), (squirt-worthiness), the follow-up the dizzyingly complex elements of the then incipient stages up Mt Improbable question remains: 'Can such flagellum, which creationists have long are a fortiori harder to envision when complexity have arisen by step-by-step used as an example of design, but too considering something astronomically accretions?' To appreciate how often merely as a wonderful example more complex20 (that is, bacterial uncomfortable such a question is for of miniaturisation. That it is, since each flagella). Darwinists must feel their evolutionists, Behe provides a mini- tiny bacterial motor contains hundreds knees buckling under the weight of anatomy lesson on the bombardier of precisely tailored parts, and yet eight these microscopic marvels. beetle. Again, he sketches just enough million of these motors could be placed Third, of the approximately ten for us to be awed by these half-inch on the cross-section of a human hair. thousand papers in technical journals pyrotechnical marvels. These whiplike, thin spiral flagella addressing flagella, it would seem To discharge its boiling-hot (needing 40 different proteins to reasonable to expect there to be some defence requires at least six simple function) rotate to propel the bacterium understanding of the mechanistic steps :- at up to 15 body lengths per second, details of how they evolved, the (1) a mixture of hydrogen peroxide are reversible, and twirl many transitional stages they went through, and hydroquinone lies dormant in thousands of times per minute. Any the mobility of putative incipient specialised secretory lobes; further recapitulation here of Behe's flagella, etc. What one encounters (2) such a mixture normally rises in adroit, but parsimonious, synopsis of instead is conjectural phraseology like, temperature, producing steam and the flagellum bauplan would be 17 'it can confidently be assumed', 'it is noxious quinone, but an inhibitor redundant, if not inadequate. likely', and 'it can be suggested'. is present which suppresses this After perusing Behe's case here, Things have not changed since 1859, reaction; 'intelligent design' theorists would do with The Origin containing phrases in (3) when the beetle senses it is a menu well to soberly contemplate and build the genre of 'we might suppose', over item, the mixture is shunted into a on the 'pattern' in this third chapter, 800 times! But it is nonetheless true collecting vesicle adjacent to the and commit these basics to their that 'explosion chamber', the two arsenal of creational truth. It is the 'lively prose can't disguise the fact connected by a duct with a addition of Behe's concept of that science hasn't a clue as to sphincter muscle; irreducible complexity to the what might explain the (4) since the chemical reaction is so swimming marvels that makes a good development of life', slow, several ectodermal glands argument for design even better. The and irreducible complexity.21 secrete the enzyme catalase (anti- following points could surely be made Finally, when an empirical inhibitor) into the explosion with all the key areas in the debate on examination of the biochemical chamber; irreducible complexity. complexity of the bacterial flagellum (5) this accelerates the volatile First, Behe has noted elsewhere fails to elicit awe, if not concession to mixture, resulting in 'steam that this complexity is final, in that the the design inference, two questions compression'; and flagella are not themselves 18 must be asked :- (6) with the sphincter now closed, the 'composed'. Therefore flagellar (1) What would the Darwinist allow only exit out of the abdominal complexity has reached its limit, and to count for design?; and chamber for the boiling mix is future research and technology will not (2) Is this not a clear example that through a sophisticated underbelly unpack boxes within boxes. But is more than science is involved? 286 CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 3, 1997 HOW TO CATCH AN internal plumbing, and sharpshooter no longer be possible, or respectable, EVOLUTIONIST turret were all simultaneously on the at the biomolecular level, according to same ledge of 'Mt Improbable'. Yet in Behe, provided we come to the debate To clarify irreducible complexity order for any of these to be candidates with the singular disposition to be for the novice, Behe employs the lowly for selection, there had to be some swayed by evidence instead of rhetoric. mousetrap. For such a device to minimal function as well and the The world around us abounds with function, a minimum number of ability to execute a task[s] in physically irreducibly complex systems: the components is required. Just look at a realistic situations. Minimal function circulatory, reproductive, and central standard trap, and imagine taking away is critical in the evolutionary story, yet nervous systems, Paley's epiglottis, any one piece. Would it then function? when coupled with irreducible dolphin sonar systems, giraffe necks, Hardly. All the pieces are necessary, complexity offers a nasty deterrent to bat radar, hummingbird aerodynamics, yet no piece is sufficient in isolation, Darwinian logic. Exactly the same kangaroo and whale nursing and would not serve in any capacity to holds for Behe's illustrations with apparatuses, the mammalian ear with expunge rodents (except, of course in flagella, clotting and cellular transport. the organ of Corti, photosynthesis, and the most fertile Darwinian feathers, flight and migratory instinct imagination22). The parallel is obvious: WHAT DOES THE BOX in birds, etc. 'Mount Improbable irreducibly complex molecular TELL US? incrementalism' would place all these mechanisms also have a minimum at a selective disadvantage in the number of components, where The continual use of the word unforgiving world of predation and the subtracting even one would make the 'machine' by Behe is no accident. A second law of thermodynamics. No entire 'machine' non-functional. Such machine implies a 'machinist', which doubt evolution-ists can romantically non-functionality would have evolutionists will resist every step of conceive of functional precursors, or deleterious effects if the trap's the way through Behe's book. The perhaps complex, interdependent continued existence depended on reader should listen in the background components fortuitously arising by catching mice. Even more funda­ for the faint echo of the Dawkinsian multiple simultaneous mutations, mental is the inference to design and cliche that what we find in 'the box' is resulting in numerous successive, therefore a designer (that is, trap just the appearance of design, that is, slight modifica-tions. But for such a maker). designoid. Behe never states it as such, brute luck thesis to be taken seriously, Even here Behe is making but he is asking these detractors what physical precursors must be provided, generous concessions to the they would allow to count against their instead of fuzzy conceptual ones evolutionists. For it is not merely the designoid thesis.23 This is the where pivotal details are never fleshed five key parts that are necessary for the Popperian falsifiability question they out. If this cannot be done, Berkeley trap to function. We also need a sturdy will always shy away from. geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, of platform (not paper, for example), Some, like Stephen Gould, try to hopeful monster fame, must be secure anchoring of the components turn the table by touting the anatomy exonerated.27 (no tape), and appropriate torque on the of the panda's 'thumb'24 as an alleged spring. Proper dimensions and example of dysteleology,25 although it DON'T BOX ME IN! placement are also necessary, like a does a perfectly good job of stripping 'holding bar' that reaches the 'catch', leaves from bamboo. Dawkins belittles Of course, resistance to the theses and a catch that is the optimum size to an intelligent designer who would wrap of Phil Johnson, David Berlinski, Paul release at the optimum time. The fact the prostate gland around the ureter as Nelson, Bill Dembski, Stephen Meyer, that the mousetrap has nothing having a 'wicked sense of humour'. J. P. Moreland, Michael Behe and other predating on it during its analogical in- But both these luminaries know it is prominent design theorists has been cremental complexification is only at the gross anatomy level that fierce. Remember that the first dogma somewhat helpful, though of course they can seduce the public, while never taught in the citadels of academia is unrealistic in the real world of food having to account in any experi­ the notion that there is no room for the chains red in tooth and claw. mentally kosher manner for the arrival 'God hypothesis' in the laboratory. In addition, while all the parts of the panda in the first place, or the Given such carte blanch delimination above are necessary, they are not incipient stages of fibro-muscular before the petri dishes are even sufficient to eradicate mice. Such is tubes between kidney and bladder. unpacked, it comes as no great shock the case with the bombardier beetle. They are ideologically constrained to that there is no Designer around at There wouldn't be any spray if there counter with a litany of 'pre-adaptation/ quitting time, nor that Behe is scorned. was not enough hydroquinone to react exaptation just so' scenarios,26 but Yet irreducible complexity is only and produce enough energy to boil the scientifically speaking these thought controversial due to what it implies; it water. And how fortuitous that the experiments carry no more credibility points to something beyond science, cluster of chambers, chemicals, than Piltdown Man. Such fanfare will and indicates that science is not the CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 3, 1997 287 final locus of truth. But the biochem­ an author the luxury of laying out credible explanation on the 'gap' in ical data is decidedly uncontroversial inductive analogies, without fear that question, then God will dissipate a la and uncontested. Behe is being readers will retort that there is not exact Carroll's Cheshire cat.31 banished to the ghetto of creationism correspondence down to the last This latter group, while calling not because he has committed peripheral minutia. Since analogy is themselves Christian, energetically biochemical malpractice, but simply mingled in deciphering practically all resist non-naturalistic interpretations. due to revulsion for the philosophical scientific matters, and is in fact And like their non-theistic counter- and cultural repercussions attending essential for meaningful communic­ parts, they say Behe is not doing the design inference.28 Matters are ation, Shreeve should: science, merely because he resists exacerbated for the Darwinists by the (1) show where Behe's analogies are artificial communal standards of embarrassment of having the inexact in such a way that actually demarcation, and is willing to probe bankruptcy of their worldview exposed capsizes his main argument; beyond sanctioned boundaries. for what it is: falsified materialistic (2) provide an unassailable example of Perhaps Behe just remembers that philosophy. But in turning a blind eye an exact analogy; and science was birthed out of a theistic to Behe's case, methodological (3) explain why he has not rained on worldview,32 and that with rare naturalists further entrench themselves Richard Dawkins' cyber-animated exception the founding fathers of every in the ideological foxholes of biomorph parade, which is a true major scientific discipline were theists. irrationalism. example of analogical molestation. He seems to hold that One must ask the question: 'What The fact of the matter is that Behe does 'the idea that the cosmos is the would be the status of contemporary point out some weaknesses in Paley's product of a rational mind (design) science if the complexity of the cell famous analogy, but shows that it is provides a superior philosophical were known in Darwin's day?' The more shock resistant once recalibrated foundation for science than the question is rhetorical, since it is to the standard of irreducible notion that everything in the doubtful whether his theory would have complexity. universe emerged from mindless made it out of the hangar, much less Others accuse Behe of having molecules. In Darwin's day many have gotten off the ground. And we 'abandoned science', yet they fault thought of materialism as a must demand to know, then, why neither his research nor data. Actually liberating response to religious Darwinism should retain its position he has only rejected any a priori dogma.'33 in academia's holy of holies. And to veneration of the tenets of But could it be that modern the degree that any philosophies, for methodological naturalism. And for materialism is the dogma that is example, those of viz. Nietzsche, good reason: in its atheistic version it restricting scientific progress? Freud, Marx, Hitler, Secular is bankrupt of explanatory power at the Additional criticisms are legion, Humanism, etc., were pre-authorised biochemical level; and in its and indicate that the mere possibility by the spreading ripples from Darwin's compartmentalised theistic version, it of intelligent design is terrifying to warm pond, they are deserving of the makes theologically detrimental many scientists. One critic, same verdict. concessions. Others claim Behe is undoubtedly anticipating both the sidestepping 'current theories', but reception of Behe's work and the 'CRITIQUES' OF BEHE they neglect to specify exactly what earthquakes it will cause, made the these are, nor why their evidence rather boring prediction that It is illuminating, if not downright (which is never actually shown) or 'the ignoranti will herald this as a entertaining, to sample a few of the conclusions are superior to Behe's. "landmark achievement that creative ruses used to muzzle or One of the more persistent canards breaks new ground "'. marginalise Behe. James Shreeve does Behe is upbraided with is his alleged Actually it fine-tunes previous ground, so not by offering better science, but capitulation to the God-of-the-gaps. buttressed with modern examples, and with the diminutive snub that Behe's This fallacy is typically levelled at shows that The Origin was not the 'best weapon is [merely] a talent for theists who, perceiving something to landmark achievement that many think lively exposition.'29 He then adds a be naturalistically inexplicable, just it was. Other therapeutic attempts at rather hollow exhortation that Behe insert God in that gap to 'explain it'.30 damage control resort to ad hominem needs to 'make his analogies exact', Naturalists rebuff this not only as attacks, with one critic labelling Behe rather than 'jury-rig a whole battery premature, but as effectively shutting as a 'mystic'; another accusing him of of mini-analogies .. .'. Here we have down all scientific enquiry. But 'diversionary sleight of hand'; yet echoes of David Hume, who in numerous theists, on the other hand, another saying he was anticipation of Paley's watchmaker are equally irritated by God-of-the- 'ashamed to admit [he had] a grad analogy, assaulted the analogical gaps, fearing that if the miraculous is degree from the institution where teleological argument. put in a present gap, and then science Behe is a professor'. But surely it is reasonable to allow advances to the point of providing a In a recent interview, Dawkins spurned 288 CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 3, 1997 intelligent design as 'a pathetic cop- entertained under the rubric of the Darwinian intuition. But something is out', describing Behe as Anthropic Principle today, the lay amiss, in that the exact same examples 'simply too lazy to figure out how apologist instinctively knows that the can be used by the creationists as things work by attributing natural Anthropic Principle can be fruitfully 'hugely gratifying confirmation' of the events to supernatural forces [that utilised while not having to buy into stability of species40 — Darwin's is, God-of-the-gaps]'. its more chimerical concomitants. finches finickly remained finches, and Such are the words of individuals Third, Behe is very up front in his Kettlewell's moths exhibited no de- caught in the hammer of Behe's mouse- claim to have 'no reason to doubt that peppering saltations. Environmentally trap. The array of additional red the universe is the billions of years old catalysed adaptations which merely herrings accompanying such attacks that physicists say it is',36 therefore dipped into the pools of already indicates a frantic effort to cauterise accepting the standard evolutionary existing genetic material can hardly be the wounds which have been, and will time-scale. This is ironic coming from hugely gratifying confirmation for a continue to be, inflicted by Behe's such an acute mind, which spends position which demands transpeciation mousetrap. It is quite enjoyable to see nearly 300 pages convincing readers and common ancestry. While Behe has such hysteria. The fact that none of not to be beguiled by the mere asser­ the prerogative to clarify in subsequent the opprobrium is accompanied by a tions of the intelligentsia. While this work which theory of origins he feels thimble of counter-evidence says does not undermine his biochemical most comfortable being associated something, and says it very, very case, it has the unintended effect of with, the reader is left to reflect on just loudly. confirming his claim that so many are where he stands, and where his willing to accept majority consensus ultimate source of authority lies; with RESIDUAL CAVEATS on an issue, while unaware that Scripture, reason, tradition, or conclusions are based more on experience? As a Roman Catholic, Darwin's Black Box should be philosophical biases than observational does he resonate with the recent mandatory reading for any thinking fact. statements of John Paul II? What person, and especially those in Fourth, alert readers will catch the reservations, if any, does he have about education. But from the creationary fact that Behe is not against evolution theistic naturalism,41 theistic evol- perspective, while there is much to be per se, but only rejects Darwinian ution,42 or progressive creationism43? lauded in Darwin's Black Box, many gradualism as the climbing gear for 'Mt Finally, while Behe makes a cogent will take umbrage with a few of Behe's Improbable'. He seems to have little scientific argument for the existence secondary assertions; ones which are quarrel with the thesis of common of a Designer, the final product is not even integral to his primary thesis. ancestry. The journal articles and hardly more appealing than the First, the fact that Behe treats Big evidence in this category, however, watchmaker/absentee landlord creator Bang cosmology with kid gloves can seem every bit as theory-laden as the of Deism. He might believe otherwise, be excused, since it is not the central other areas he has researched, so this but from the case in Darwin's Black ideational trajectory of his book. But reviewer is curious to see what specific Box alone, we are left with 'intelligent one would hope that Behe, or his evidence tipped the scales so much to design' at best. This itself is no doubt astrophysical equal, would subject the warrant his blessing.37 Even more so, by design. And in a closed world that irresponsible conjecture which why even mention it in the book at all? has been indoctrinated to mock notions characterises the Hot Big Bang model34 It makes no contribution to his case. of the transcendent, Behe nudges the to the same masterful disambiguation Could it be perhaps merely a peace pendulum back in the direction of mere of Darwinism-tainted biochemistry treaty of sorts, to those whom he's design, while allowing readers the that he's accomplished in Darwin's calling to account, thus ensuring that personal privilege of plumbing the Black Box. his thesis will receive the widest depths of what a Designer implies. Second, Behe briefly touches upon possible hearing? Otherwise he might While recognition of a Designer does the wildly speculative quantum notion be accused of being a flat Earther, or not translate ipso facto into genu­ of multiple universes as a concomitant worse yet, someone who takes the flection at Calvary, it certainly renders of the Anthropic Principle.35 The Genesis narrative at face value, which such a surrender much more likely. Anthropic Principle and Behe's of course is tantamount to leprosy. These shortcomings aside, here is irreducible complexity overlap in a Fifth, while arguing that 'large a text which is required reading, if not comparative sense, in that they both jumps' (macroevolution) are not memorisation, for all creationists who derive their postdictive power from credible,38 he then concedes that 'small desire to be on the cutting edge in tabulating the plethora of contingencies jumps' (microevolution) confirm further buttressing their apologetic necessary for life, giving a thunderous Darwinism on a small scale.39 Rapid against evolution. Perhaps the biggest eradication to Dawkins' unconscious diversification of finch beaks and problem lovers of God's Word will have watchmaker. But while strictly Biston betularia are referred to as after reading Darwin's Black Box, is speaking, 'multiple universes' are 'hugely gratifying confirmation' of how to fight boredom till the arrival of CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 3, 1997 289 his next book.44 For those with Darwin- assistance, faxing and emails. when he had in reality only supposed them ian proclivities, the thought of Behe's away by imagining intermediate links, and relied on his readers not being able to sequel could hardly be more REFERENCES AND NOTES distinguish between a mental construct and nauseating. hard evidence. Behe has only introduced us to the 1. Attacking Behe's evidence is not an enviable Francis Hitching, 1982. The Neck of the staggeringly lilliputian intricacies and task, as will be seen, but it will be even harder Giraffe, Mentor, New York, p. 215. Present day methodological and theistic masterfully designed efficiency of the to attack the man. Having heard both Behe and Phil Johnson speak, I can say that neither naturalists will no doubt traffic in similar cell. Future discoveries will continue exhibits a single ounce of arrogance. Both beguiling responses to intelligent design to confirm the intelligent design thesis. employ a down home approach to matters, and theorists. But Behe has courageously put his exhibit every decorum as gentlemen and 9. Hoyle, F. and Wickramasinghe, N. C, 1981. neck on the line, and articulated what scholars. The fact that they do so articulately, Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic and with good cheer, solid evidence and in Creationism, Simon and Schuster, New York, many honest scientists have known or indetourable command of the essentials of the pp. 96-97. suspected for quite some time but have debate, makes debate with them all the more 10. Behe, Ref. 2, p. 22. been reticent to suggest because they unpalatable for detractors of the design 11. While complexity level may vary slightly, are neither tenured or independently inference. most sighted creatures possess the following 2. Behe, M. J., 1996. Darwin's Black Box: the six components: a lens, retina, optic nerve, wealthy. With such ideological Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The geniculate body, occipital cortex and frontal influences as research grants, Free Press, New York, p. 39. lobe. Dawkins does not appear to have the careerism, peer pressure, publish or 3. Note that Behe is not arguing against evolution foggiest clue that his ruminations about' 1 per perish mandates and the agony of an per se, but only against any Darwinian type cent' of an eye don't even offer ' 1 per cent' mechanism as an explanation for the origin of an answer for such six-component, gross autonomy-threatening paradigm shift, of biochemical complexity. anatomy, irreducible complexity, which are all it is more than legitimate to ask how 4. Darwin, C, 1872. The Origin of Species, prior to the biochemical nightmares Behe has much real science is taking place in the 6th edition, Mentor, New York, p. 171. awaiting for him. Darwin was convinced that academy. 5. Readers may remember that the question of 'natura non facit saltum', but his modern whether Darwinian selection can account for missionaries continue to leap across such Powerfully complementing Phil interdependent, functional complexity has chasms with the aid of a little pixie dust. Johnson's writings, Behe augments the been addressed many times. See: 12. Behe, Ref. 2, pp. 46-47. case that Darwinism is bad philosophy Bergman, J., 1991. Can natural selection 13. Darwin, Ref. 4, p. 168. 14. Mayr, E., 1988. Toward a New Philosophy masquerading as science. When produce complex organs? The problem of organ development. CEN Tech. J., 5(1): of Biology, Harvard University Press, encountering the opened box, its 48-52. Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 72. contents will be too disturbing, and Bergman J., 1995. Mutations and evolution. 15. This candid admission was made by some will feel boxed in, refusing to CEN Tech. J., 9(2): 146-154. evolutionist Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist of the British Museum of revise their Weltanschauung. For those Aw, S-E., 1996. The origin of life: a critique of current scientific models. CEN Tech. J., Natural History, New York City, November, of Dawkinsian bent, the existence of 10(3):300-314. 1981. an intelligent Designer will continue Bergman, J., 1997. Cell cycle control and 16. These three points are from: to prove elusive, regardless of any Paley's watch. CEN Tech. J., ll(l):82-92. Bradley, W., Lecture at the Mere Creation Conference, Biola, November 14, 1996. evidence, because of an a priori Compare also: Armitage, M., 1997. Man, micro-parasites, 17. Behe, Ref. 2, pp. 59-73. commitment to methodological and electron microscopy of trematodes. CEN 18. Nelson, P., 1993. Thinking About the naturalism. Dawkins cannot keep the Tech.J.,ll(l):93-105. Theory of Design, internet document, box closed, and will therefore put an 6. The reference is to Richard Dawkins' latest http://www/mrccos.com/arn/orpages/orl52/ 152main.htm, page 10. improbable spin on the mountain of book, Climbing Mount Improbable. The metaphor refers to a climber who goes from 19. Behe, Ref. 2, p. 73. biochemical evidence against bottom to summit by small steps. Likewise, 20. Compare the schematic drawings in Behe, designoids. life has slowly ascended to biological Ref. 2, pp. 60,71. On the other hand, Christians who complexity via tiny random mutations of the 21. Behe, M., 1996. Clueless at Oxford. National Review, October 14, p. 83. wish to give an answer for their faith blind watchmaker, rather than huge bounds to the top which might be likened to miracles. 22. The reader is urged to peruse critical reviews will be drawn back to Behe again and On the surface, descent with modification of Behe on this point, to sample just how anti- again. And if you know a skeptic who guided by random variation and natural empirical some are willing to go in their is open-minded enough to be selection seems astronomically improbable. thought constructs, to deny this simple point. 23. Here we have in mind Dawkins' contention persuaded by a 'purely scientific' But the Darwinian mechanism, according to Dawkins, that rebuttal of methodological naturalism, 'acts by breaking the improbability up into 'Biology is the study of complicated things yet do not want to initially lose him in small manageable parts, smearing out the luck that give the appearance of having been a plethora of 'thus saith the Lord's, this needed, going round the bach of Mount designed for a purpose'. next December's holiday shopping has Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes.' (Dawkins, R, 1986. The Blind Watchmaker, 7. Paley's contemporary, George Cuvier, also W. W. Norton and Company Ltd, London, been made so much easier. presaged irreducible complexity, calling it 'the p. 1, emphasis added.) A special word of thanks must be correlation of parts'. In Dawkins' world, all facets of design in the extended to Dr Andrew Snelling, both 8. According to Hitching, Darwin had natural realm, are only apparent; they are just 'designoids'. Perhaps in noting this neo- for inviting me to review this book, and 'a beguiling way of making you think he [had] faced up to all the objections to his theory, docetism, the critical thinker is justified in for untold hours of gracious editorial and overcome them', pondering whether it is Dawkins' scientific 290 CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 3, 1997 objectivity which is apparent. an extraordinary unlikely coincidence of an average value'. 24. The 'thumb' is actually an enlarged wrist events. I think here of what is being touted in Eldredge, N., 1995. Reinventing Darwin, bone, called the radial sesamoid. some quarters as "complexity theory" [a Wiley, New York, p. 69; cf. also p. 94. 25. Dysteleology denotes alleged absence of development of chaos theory] according to 41. For example, Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke purpose or design in nature (vestigial organs, which the most incredibly sophisticated and John Polkinghorne. etc.); that is, purposelessness. See: systems can appear to be spontaneously self- 42. For example, Howard Van Till and most Bergman, J. and Howe, G., 1990. 'Vestigial organising. One might again look at Darwin's members of The American Scientific Organs' Are Fully Functional, Creation theory of evolution and the way in which it is Affiliation (ASA). Research Society Books, Kansas City. argued to explain, according to various 43. For example, Pattle Pun, Bernard Ramm, and 26. Gould, S. J., 1991. Bully for Brontosaurus, principles following the laws of natural Hugh Ross. W. W. Norton and Company, New York, selection, what we might otherwise regard as Progressive creationism is by far the most p. 144n. highly improbable according to mere chance. popular origins compromise in evangelical 27. In 1940 Goldschmidt posed challenges similar The danger of such an approach is that academic circles today. However, as with to Behe. He asked the scientific community perpetually threatening any kind of God-of- other illegitimate concordisms, one ends up to offer a step-by-step account leading to the-gaps approach'. chipping away at God's Word as prepositional complex structures: Rae, M., Regan, H. and Stenhouse, J. (eds), truth. This begins with some type of dual 'I may challenge the adherents of the strictly 1994. Science and Theology: Questions at revelation, which prompts a fuzzification of Darwinian view . . . to try and explain the the Interface, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Pentateuchal perspicuity on 'yom', followed evolution of the following features by p. 52. by an obligatory watering down of Noah's accumulation and selection of small mutants: To interminably hope that 'subsequent Flood (if it's kept at all). Once this downward hair in mammals, feathers in birds, discovery might unveil rational scientific spiral of capitulation to modernity is initiated, segmentation of arthropods and vertebrates, reasons 'for biochemical complexity is fine; the teeth are taken out of any resistance to the transformation of the gill arches in but only as long as there is no law against further compromise. Particularly vulnerable phytogeny including the aortic arches, daydreaming! are the doctrines of the atonement and divine muscles, nerves, etc.; further, teeth, shells of 32. This point is ubiquitously chronicled in the omnibenevolence once the sin-death causal molluscs, ectoskeletons, compound eyes, writings of Stanley L. Jaki. nexus is severed. This follows logically since blood circulation, alternation of generations, 33. Adapted from class handout of Dr Michael the untold billions of carcasses depicted in statocysts, ambulacral system of echinoderms, Keas. the fossil record must now be deciphered as pedicellaria of the same, cnidocysts, poison 34. An Australian journalist once summed it up prelapsarian, intended as part of God's very apparatus of snakes, whalebone, and finally, nicely: good natural order, and not initiated by primary chemical differences like 'First you have speculation; then you have Adamic sin; thus 'original sin' is open to haemoglobin versus haemocyanin, etc.'. wild speculation; then you have cosmology!' being retooled (it has already happened in Goldschmidt, R., 1940. The Material Basis Martyn Harris, 'Stephen Hawking; genius or some circles), which will exact a of Evolution, Yale University Press, New pretender', The Weekend Australian, July hermeneutically and theologically Haven, Connecticut, p. 7. 4-5,1992, p. 19. catastrophic price once the rest of Scripture Goldschmidt was regarded as a quack in his 35. Behe, Ref. 2, p. 247. is overhauled to conform to the initial day, but sixty years later his challenges are 36. Behe, Ref. 2, p. 5. capitulation. still being ducked. 37. According to Phil Johnson: 44. In private correspondence, Behe told me that 28. I am grateful to Michael Keas for this thought. 'The evidence from developmental biology, his editor has been enticing him to write a 29. New York Times Book Review, August 8, supposedly a major support for the common follow-up volume. 1996, p. 8. ancestry thesis [CAT], actually undermines 30. This is virtually identical to the so-called it. This is not noticed because common Argument from Ignorance. Critics say that ancestry is axiomatic and hence never in just because Behe cannot imagine a question.' naturalistic mechanism for the cell or Johnson, P., 1995. Reason in the Balance, undirected evolution, does not mean that such InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, Thane Hutcherson Ury has a M.Div., will not come in the future. But such a claim p. 213, emphasis added. itself ironically commits the fallacy of Let us hope Behe subjects the CAT axiom to and has been teaching philosophy for argumentum ab futuris; the claim that no the same rigorous interrogation he's modelled eight years at Bethel College, matter how bad things are, evidence will be in Darwin's Black Box. Mishawaka, Indiana. He is in his final forthcoming to prove such and such. Just as 38. Behe, Ref. 2, p. 14, passim. year of doctoral studies in Systematic hard to disprove as a universal negative, this 39. Behe, Ref. 2, p. 15. is difficult to disprove as a 'universal positive'; 40. Confirmation of the unrelenting stasis of Theology at Andrews University, with truly a last resort for the chronically species is acknowledged by anti-creationist, the thesis: 'The Fossil Record and optimistic. Niles Eldredge: Divine Omnibenevolence: a Critical 31. Stephen May captures it all when he writes 'But rarely do we see progressive Comparison and Analysis of Post- that transformation in any one direction lasting 'subsequent discovery might unveil rational very long. What we see instead is oscillation. Darwinian Concordist Responses to scientific reasons for what seems at present Variable traits usually seem to dance around Paleo-Natural Evil'.

CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 3, 1997 291