Darwin's Black Box

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (1996, first edition; 2006, second edition) is a book written by Michael J. Behe and published by Free Press in which he introduces his notion of irreducible complexity and claims that its presence in many biochemical systems indicates therefore that they must be the result of intelligent design rather than evolutionary processes.

The book has been a source of controversy, as the scientific community at large considers intelligent design and its constituent arguments to be religious, creationism, and 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.

1 Overview
2 Reception in the scientific community
3 Peer review controversy
4 See also
5 References
6 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 paradigm shifts in the history of science, in which the foundations and assumptions of theories are examined, sometimes resulting in the rejection of an entire theory. Behe suggests that such a paradigm shift in biology (and particularly in evolution) is imminent due to recent discoveries (circa 1996) in biochemistry. Behe acknowledges acceptance of the Theory of Evolution by "the great majority" of scientists, and states that "most (though not all) do so based on authority."

Behe states that elucidations of the evolutionary history of various biological features typically assume the existence of certain abilities as their starting point, such as Charles Darwin's example of a cluster of light-sensitive spots evolving into an eye via a series of intermediate steps. He then points out that Darwin dismissed the need to explain the origin of the 'simple' light-sensitive spot, summarizes the modern understanding of the biochemistry of vision and claims that many other evolutionary explanations face a similar challenge.

Behe next introduces and defines the concept of irreducible complexity as a system with a series of parts in which the removal of any part causes the entire system to cease functioning, offering a springloaded-bar mousetrap as a familiar example. In the following chapters, Behe discusses the apparent irreducible complexity of several biological systems, including the cilium, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system and intracellular gated and vesicular transport. Behe claims the underlying complexity and biochemical mechanisms of the systems are vastly under-appreciated, and identifies other, similar systems.

Behe identifies one of the primary counter-arguments of irreducible complexity, gradual adaptation - that certain systems may have been co-opted from an original, unrelated role to assume a new function as an irreducibly complex system. He counter-argues that though it is impossible to consider all possible roles for any component, it is components can fortuitiously change function within a complex system and that the focus of the theory changes from making to modifying components and recounts unsuccessful attempts to discover evolutionary pathways for complex systems within scientific journals. Behe states that though he did identify assertions that evolution had occurred, he found none that had been supported by experiment or calculation, and concludes the book by offering intelligent design as a solution to irreducible complexity.

[edit] Reception in the scientific community

Darwin's Black Box was not well received by the scientific community, who overwhelmingly rejected Behe's premises and arguments. Kenneth Miller pointed out that Behe is using an updated version of the argument from design with reference to biochemistry (which was echoed by other reviewers^[1]^[2]), and also cites areas in biochemistry and the fossil record which demonstrate currently irreducibly complex systems evolving. Miller also points out the lack of falsifiability of the theory, and an ability to arbitrarily ignore evidence that shows the evolution of a biochemical system.^[3] On his blog, PZ Myers described it as "...an example of pseudoscientific dreck that has been enormously influential."^[4] In a review for Nature, Jerry Coyne described the book hailing from 'populist' creationism that failed to deal with the evidence for evolution honestly. Coyne also accuses Behe of quote mining and using ad hominem attacks against scientists while 'timidly accepting' evolution.^[5] A review on the pro-evolution website talk.origins, described the book as "...an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance" and that within it systems were labeled "irreducibly complex" if Behe was not able to envision a simpler system that still worked. The review also stated that the theory was unfalsifiable (echoing Miller^[3]), with faulty logic that worked because Behe did not provide crucial facts that would illustrate its failings.^[6] H. Allen Orr has called Behe's argument in the book "...just plain wrong", pointing out that gradual adaptation could produce irreducibly complex systems. Orr also states that not only are examples of gradual adaptation already know (pointing to the work of H. J. Muller in the early 20th century^[7]) and further, are found in non-biological systems like computer programming.^[2] Behe is also criticized for claiming a conspiracy of silence among scientists regarding the 'failure of Darwinism'.^[1]

Richard Dawkins criticized the book for being logically flawed by setting up a false dichotomy in which Darwinian evolution is rejected despite an enormous amount of positive evidence due to a single apparent failure to explain irreducible complexity. Dawkins further commented that it was an argument Darwin himself had anticipated, and that the example of a bacterial flagellum used by Behe had in fact been refuted by Kenneth R. Miller in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.^[8]

Behe has responded to some of these criticisms.^[9]

[edit] Peer review controversy

In 2005, while testifying for the defense in the Dover trial, Behe claimed under oath that the book had received a more thorough peer review than a scholarly article in a refereed journal,^[10] a claim which appears to conflict the facts of the book's peer review.^[11] Four of the book's five reviewers (Michael Atchison, Robert Shapiro, K. John Morrow, and Russell Doolittle) have made statements that contradict or otherwise do not support Behe's claim of the book passing a rigorous peer review.

Richard Atchinson: 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.^[12]

Robert Shapiro: Shapiro has said that he reviewed the book, and while he agreed with some of its analysis of origin-of-life research, he thought its conclusions are false, though the best explanation of the argument from design that was available.^[13] Had the book been submited to a peer-reviewed journal and this comment had appeared, the review provided by Shapiro would have forced the conclusions regarding intelligent design to be changed or removed.^[13]

K. John Morrow: Morrow criticised the book as appalling and unsupported, which contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.^[14]

Russell Doolittle: Doolittle, upon whom Behe based much of his discussion of blood clotting, described it as misrepresenting many important points and disingenuous, which also contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.^[15]

In the same trial, Behe eventually 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".^[16] The result of the trial was the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.