Customer Reviews

Darwin's Black Box

5 star:		(187)
4 star:		(55)
3 star:		(52)
2 star:		(38)
1 star:		(99)

 

 

The truly amazing thing about Behe's book is not just the thorough documentation and careful argumentation, but also the ways it stirs up such disparate passions. After reading the negative reviews, there is no doubt left in my mind that believers in naturalistic evolution regard the theory with the same reverence that Christians view doctrines like the Virgin Birth and the Atonement. Naturalism has become a quasi-religious worldview to these people that they feel they must defend against "heretics."

As far as self-proclaimed "skeptics" are concerned, I always find it amusing that they invariably are skeptical about the exact same things. If someone claims, for example, that they have proof of ESP, the cries of "fraud" and "insufficient evidence" start flying. On the other hand, if someone claims that life arose from non-living matter via a process of mutation filtered through natural selection, then the theory is crowned as sacred truth. The fact there is virtually no fossil evidence, other than a few remains that appear to be major transitional forms of a handful of speices, is irrelevant.

Methinks that the critics of intelligent design should just build their own churches, hire clergy, anoint Richard Dawkins as their Pope, and gather on the Sabbath to worship the bones of Australopithicus.

Behe claims that blood clotting could not have developed by chance. Ken Miller from Brown University says "it could have happened by chance, here's how"; then he then goes on to create a fanciful scenario filled with random mutations and natural selection and non-existent, hypothetical creatures that just "happen" to have the necessary organs and systems to develop blood clotting. Unfortunately for Miller, scientists Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan state in their recent book, "Acquiring Genomes," that there is no evidence that random mutation and natural selection have ever produced a new species or a new organ. Thus Miller's scientific rebuttal to Behe amounts to nothing more than "Presto, Abra-cadabra, Shazam!" I think I will have to side with Behe on this one.

OUTSTANDING BOOK!!. PERIOD!!. I don't care what kind background you have in science but this is the truth. A must have!!

If you take an unbiased look at this book and read it at its own terms, you will find it to be very convincing. Then if you step back and look at the entire evolution/creation debate it is just as convincing. The powerful arguments against evolution shake the foundations of the very theory. If one denies this statement after reading the book, then their mind is closed. They must reread the book without their prejudices.
At any rate, this masterpiece can be appreciated at all levels.

Behe's argument about irreducible complexity reminded me of a little article I read a year or so ago. The article was about a the results of an experiment using evolutionary techniques to allow a computer to "design" a simple circuit, using logic gates as building blocks. The design goals for the circuit were simple, and the best design that engineers could come up with used about 14 "gates", the smallest components that engineers use in logic circuit design.

In the evolutionary technique, a computer manipulated a sequence that served as the blueprint or DNA for the circuit, describing how the gates were to be connected. The computer could then test the resulting circuit, compare the results with the desired results, and rearrange the gates using "genetic algorithms" on the blueprint sequence, and try again, over and over. The computer was not programmed with any knowledge about how the gates function, or given any "intelligence" other than the relativly simple genetic algorithms (similar to gene crossover, etc).

The resulting circuit took only 12 gates. Engineers couldn't figure out how it worked at first. What happened is that some of the gates ended up being fed intermediary voltages, in a way they weren't designed to operate, so they no longer operated like simple logic gates. So, the resulting design was "simpler" in needing fewer components -- but vastly more complex in understanding how it worked. No part of the design made much sense by itself. The circuit had to be analyzed as a whole, using much more complex techniques for circuit analysis than are needed for traditional logic circuits.

This little experiment gives evidence that evolution tends to produce "irreducably complex" designs, whereas human designers tend to produce understandable designs. Based on this, Behe's evidence that life uses "irreducibly complex" designs seems to give evidence for evolution rather than intelligent design.

Behe assumes that intelligent designers produce irreducibly complex design, without giving any evidence for that belief. A simple experiment contradicts his assumption.

Not that this proves creationism wrong. Evolution theory still has critical problems to solve, such as those involving probability and mutation, as well as initial conditions (creating the components that make evolution possible).

Don't bother voting -- this review won't help you much to decide whether to buy the book -- sorry!

I'm amazed at reading the reviews of these books by "scientists" who attack Behe's irreducible complexity argument as "nothing new", but offer no credible alternative explanation of how molecular machines such as the bacterial flagellum could have gradually come in to existence through natural selection. They instead try to make it into a philosophical argument.

Darwin wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Any honest reading of this book would conclude that Behe demonstrates that Darwin's own criteria for the breakdown of his theory has now been met.

"Darwin's Black Box" finally tackles the mystery of evolution. Behe's unbiased views make this book unique. He gives amazing examples to back up his views. As a biologist-in-training, it is nice to finally hear some truth about this topic, not just blind faith in things that there is no evidence for. I commend Behe for standing up for the ideas that everyone else is afraid to tackle. This is a must-read for those who have only heard the evolutionary views to the origin-of-life.

It's unfortunate that the whole creation-evolution issue is such an emotional one, or there might actually be some intelligent dialogue going on about it. The lengthy melodramatic reviews written to discredit Behe's book are perhaps best summarized by this more succinct one:

"More drivel from the peanut gallery !!!!!!!DARWIN was right!!!YOU WANT THE TRUTH ? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!! I read this book it su didley ucks!!!!!!"

If this reviewer did, in fact, read Behe's book, two things can be said of him: 1) he hated it, probably from the outset and 2) he is of rather minimal intelligence. The second observation cannot be said true of the other reviewers, hence they are able to write longer reviews.

Behe's is a well-written book and it makes its points clearly and solidly. You will either love it or hate it, depending on your predetermined agenda. And if you are unsure about the issue, it might just change your mind. But you should read the book and form your own opinions. This is the only branch of science (if macroevolution can be considered a scientific theory - naturalistic, yes, but scientific dependent on your definition of science) that is so hotly debated because it ultimately deals with religious issues, and you simply cannot take at face value what anyone else says. Think for yourself and don't let other people think for you.

I first looked at this book when I heard that it had te first real scientific argument against evolution from a real professor, and not some diploma mill creationist. The science is good and the author does not let his personal faith get in the way of the science. It is also well writen and engaging. This is why it gets two stars. Unfortunatly the main idea of the entire book is flawed.

The author preposes that there are some organisms in the animal world that are incompatible with darwins theory of evolution. This is because they are what he calls "irraducibly complex": meaning that if one part of the system is taken away then the entire thing no longer works. He draws on cell biology to bak up his case, arguing that a system like a bacterial motor could not hace evolved by chance because if one part of it is remved then it will not fuction, and it is impossible that all the parts in the system could have evolved in a single mutation.

There is one fundermental flaw to this argument: the author asumes that the parts that make up a bacterial motor have no usful function by them selves. He could not be further form the truth. The six or so main parts that make up a bacterial motor ar still usful by them selves. With out a motor to turn the tail, the tail can still be used in other ways, such as injecting protine into other structures, exchanging DNA, ect. When you alie this to his thesis it completly falls apart.

And finaly, to all those creationists out there, even if there was any evidence of a designer, which there isn't, that would not mean that the designer was your god or took any intrest in human afirst or gave a damn wheather you did or didn't go to church on Sundays. For all you know the designer could be aliens or flying pigs! It should also be notised that Behe himslef has addmited that there are two few examles of irraducable complecity to rule out all of the theory of evolution and that the fossil record demostrates that evolution must have happened even with a little help from a creator, which there is no evidence to sugest ec=ven exists.

Sorry people, evolution is here to stay, and so far no strong argument against it has been come up with.

And on another note for all thoses people who claim that Einstiene belived in god, this is taken by his auto-biography:
(1949, pp. 3-5): "Thus I came--despite the fact I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents--to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived...Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude...hich has never left me..."

He also says:"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one".

Einstien thought that there was a possibility that there was a god, he also agknowlaged that there didn't need to be one for the univers to exist.

I picked up this thinking it was a careful discussion of some unsolved problems in the study of evolution (I saw all those biochemical digrams), but if you've been reading some of the other reviews, you know that it is a book arguing the case for "intelligent design." Behe's argument rests on the notion of "irreducible complexity," the idea that many complex biochemical processes could have no evolutionarily adaptive, simpler precursors. However, he gives no objective guidelines for deciding when something is irreducibly complex; effectively, he says you'll recognize irreducible complexity when you see it.

To help develop this subjective ability to be shocked and awed by the complexity of living systems, he discusses several biochemical processes in great detail. For this part, I give the book three stars. I never cared much for the wet and squishy sciences of biology and chemistry, but his treatment of biochemical processes makes me now see molecular interactions as a bunch of little machines. I can relate to that! And---indeed---we should be awed by the magnificence of these mechanisms. But his statement that these are irreducibly complex involves a leap of faith that those in the intelligent design camp will only be too glad to take and those in the evolution camp will not.

Early in the book I thought he would be making an argument for the weak anthropic principle. That is, living systems are so complex that they could only come about in a universe where the physical laws were set up automatically form complex systems (that eventually can become self-aware and come to marvel at their own complexity). But he gives short shrift to the weak anthropic principle. In fact, he dismisses it in a paragraph or so with the comment that people would probably find the concept silly.

The idea that the universe is set up to self-organize is behind the work of Stuart Kaufmann, whom Behe also discusses. But there is no real substantial discussion of the body of work on self-organization. Rather, he lets Kaufmann represent this body of work, then shoots him down with arguments bordering on ad hominem (e.g., mentioning that Kaufmann's former graduate advisor lambasted him in review of Kaufmann's book).

In short, I don't have any a priori interest in intelligent design, but I would be happy to listen to any carefully reasoned arguments for it where the conclusions followed convincingly from the premises. This book is not such an argument.