Darwin's Black Box

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Cover of Darwin's Black Box

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution is a 1996 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.

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. [7]

1 Overview
2 Reception of Darwin's Black Box in the scientific community
3 Darwin's Black Box peer review controversy
4 References
5 External links

[edit] 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.

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."

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.

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, demonstrated "A reducibly complex mousetrap"^[1]. In defense of the mousetrap, Behe claims that McDonald's reduced-component traps are not single-step intermediates in the building of the mousetrap he demonstrated.^[2].

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.

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.

[edit] Reception of Darwin's Black Box 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, in reviewing Darwin's Black Box said in the September 19, 1996 edition of Nature said:

"...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]

[edit] Darwin's Black Box 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.^[6]

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.^[7] Robert Shapiro has said that he did review the book, and while he agreed with some of his analysis of origin-of-life research, he thinks Behe's 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.^[8] K. John Morrow panned the book as appalling and unsupported, which contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.^[9] 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.^[10]

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".^[11] The result of the trial was the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.