Michael Behe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952, in Altoona, Pennsylvania) is an American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He is married and has nine children.^[1] He advocates the idea that some structures are too complex at the biochemical level to be adequately explained as a result of evolutionary mechanisms. He has termed this concept "irreducible complexity".

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community, including his own department, the Department of Biological Sciences, at Lehigh University.^[2] Likewise, his claims about intelligent design have been characterized as pseudoscience.^[3][4][5][6]

Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge^{[7][8][9][10]} in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.^[11]

Contents 1 Academics 2 Controversy: irreducible complexity & intelligent design 2.1 Behe & Snoke (2004) 2.2 Popular writing 3 Dover testimony 4 Books 5 Videos 6 Trivia 7 References 8 External links 8.1 Pro-intelligent design 8.2 Pro-Evolution 8.3 Debates and Talks 8.4 Video Reviews

[edit] Academics

Behe grew up in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where he attended grade school at St. Margaret Mary's Parochial School and later graduated from Bishop McDevitt High School.^[12][13] He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He did his graduate studies in Biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry.

[edit] Controversy: irreducible complexity & intelligent design

Main articles: Irreducible complexity and Intelligent design

Behe once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution. After reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution.^[14] Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures.

After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the teaching of Scientific Creationism from public schools, many former critics of evolution as well as a new generation felt that new strategies and language was necessary. The books of lawyer Phillip E. Johnson on intelligent design, which strayed away from direct claims about a Young Earth and stuck to criticisms of evolutionary theory and purported biased "materialist" science, provided such a model. New organizations devoted to the study of what they called intelligent design sprung up, among them the Discovery Institute. In 1996 Behe became a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (later renamed the Center for Science and Culture) the then newly-formed institution to promote intelligent design.

By this time, Behe had published his ideas on irreducible complexity in a book called Darwin's Black Box, which was a public and critical success. Scientists however responded by arguing that Behe's arguments and examples were based only on a refined form of "argument from ignorance", rather than any demonstration of the actual impossibility of explanation by natural processes. Furthermore, they asserted that he deliberately aimed the publication of this book at the general public in order to gain maximum publicity while avoiding any peer-reviews from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his claims.^[15][16]

Nevertheless, Behe's more secular arguments and credentials as a published biochemist gave the intelligent design movement its first major mainstream proponent. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer infuriated scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution.^[17]

Unlike William A. Dembski ^[18] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,^[19] including that humans descended from other primates, although he claims that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.

In a November 8, 1996 interview Richard Dawkins said of Behe:

"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)...point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is...maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder." Richard Dawkins on Evolution and Religion

[edit] Behe & Snoke (2004)

He published a paper, together with David Snoke, in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Protein Science,^[20] which he claims supports the idea, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, it does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers. Nevertheless, The Discovery Institute lists it as one of the "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design".^[21]

Michael Lynch authored a response,^[22] to which Behe and Snoke responded.^[23] An editorial was written.^[24]

Scientists were again highly critical of the claims made about the research, pointing out that it not only had been shown that a supposedly Irreducibly Complex structure could evolve, but that it could do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions. They also objected to it being claimed as published evidence for design given that it offered no design theory or attempt to model the design process, and also failed to offer an alternative to evolution.^[25]

Many of Behe's challenges to evolution have been addressed by biologist Kenneth Miller in his book, Finding Darwin's God. Behe has subsequently addressed Miller's points in an essay.^[26]

[edit] Popular writing

Behe has written editorial features in the Boston Review, American Spectator, and The New York Times. Behe, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates William A. Dembski and David Berlinski, "tutored" Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.^[27] Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which she terms "Darwinism".^[28]

[edit] Dover testimony

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his claims about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded 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".^[29] During this testimony Behe conceded that definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.^[30] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.^[31]

The judge in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense, citing:

• "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."^[32]
• 'As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."^[33]
• "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."^[34]
• "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."^[35]
• "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."^[36]
• "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."^[37]
• "Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."^[38]
• "Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."^[39]
• "...proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. … Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."^[40]

[edit] Books

• Darwin's Black Box. Free Press (publisher), 1996. ISBN 0-684-83493-6
• The Edge of Evolution. Free Press (publisher), (announced for June 2007)
• Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute) ISBN 0-89870-809-5

[edit] Videos

• Intelligent Design: From the Big Bang to Irreducible Complexity
• Unlocking the Mystery of Life
• Irreducible Complexity: The Biochemical Challenge to Darwinian Theory
• Where Does the Evidence Lead?

[edit] Trivia

• Prof. Behe loves the Lord of the Rings, especially Gandalf. He has appeared on CNN wearing a Gandalf shirt.

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Lehigh University Faculty bio

[edit] Pro-intelligent design

• International Society for Complexity Information and Design
• Discovery institute biography
  • Discovery Institute articles by Behe
• Behe at Access Research Network

[edit] Pro-Evolution

• Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on intelligent design — part of the talk.origins archive.
• Irreducible Complexity Demystified
• Behe's Empty Box, on Richard Dawkins academic website
• Michael Behe

[edit] Debates and Talks

• The 1997 Firing Line Creation-Evolution Debate
• Video Lecture: Behe on the Argument for Design

[edit] Video Reviews

• Unlocking the Mystery of Life the flagellar motor video