Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
the book being Darwin's Black Box: A Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Although he had published
papers before this, and still continues to do research, this book brought Behe to the spotlight of the
scientific community, along with high publicity in creationist circles. Although the book does not
directly vindicate creationism, creationists used the book, and its ideas to reinforce their beliefs, and
added Behe to a list of scientists who support creationist science in one way or another, implicitly or
not. Not only did creationists take the premise of the book to heart, but the a small contingent of
scientists supporting Intelligent Design (ID) found that the main arguments of the book largely matched
up to what they had been saying, notably that life is too complicated for natural selection to have
A majority of the scientific community has rejected the arguments Behe has made, mainly
Irreducible Complexity (IC), which will be the basis of this paper. A notable evolutionary biologist, H.
Allen Orr, has reviewed the book, and published his review in the Boston Review, rejecting Behe's
argument for IC, at least in the conclusions Behe drew in Darwin's Black Box. As Behe usually does,
he took the time to respond to Orr's criticisms, and it would not be an exercise in futility to see what
each of these men had to say, and draw conclusions based on each of their arguments.
First off, a definition of what Behe means by Irreducible Complexity should be stated and
examined before an argument is formed surrounding the idea. And, as one would imagine, there is no
better place to look for a definition then Darwin's Black Box. On page 39, Behe sets forth a decent
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. An
irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously
improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by
This is Behe's very own definition, and it is sufficient to say that when he says something is irreducibly
complex, or shows signs of IC, it is in reference to this definition. Behe, although the original contriver
of IC, was not the first to use this line of thinking when talking about complex biological structures.
A few key ideas about IC can be drawn from Behe's definition, so that the idea in its entirety
can be made somewhat simpler and easier to work with. First of all, IC claims that some or, even all,
complex biological structures could not have formed through the process of natural selection. This
leads logically to the conclusion that an irreducibly complex structure does not have an ancestor
structure which could have evolved into it. Since there is no known way for an irreducibly complex
structure to have formed through natural means, the structure, therefore, shows characteristics of
design. Michael Behe does not make a claim about who or what the designer may be, but some people
are led to believe automatically he means the Judeo-Christian God, but this is a false assumption, as
this particular argument leaves open the possibility that the designer could be any number of gods or
As was stated before, a number of members of the scientific community have read the book and
critiqued it in a manner of ways. Of course some people have dismissed the book outright, without
having even opened a copy. Some scientists will not necessarily see a threat in the book's arguments
and have given the book some attention, noting what they perceive as falsities in its ideas and claims.
Still, some scientists see the book as a legitimate academic threat to Darwinism, and have taken the
time to thoroughly go over the arguments of the book, and either agree with it, or debunk the book and
its ideas. H. Allen Orr, a noted evolutionary biologist, has taken the preceding step, and tried to debunk
the book, being skeptical of Behe's claims, and published a review in the Boston Review. Behe, then,
responded to H. Allen Orr, publishing his paper on the Access Resource Network's Internet website.
H. Allen Orr starts out his review by saying that “Darwin's Black Box is well-written, cleverly
argued, and biologically informed.” Orr does this because he sees that the book has some value, and
that some people have used the book to back their creationist beliefs, and, although he sees some
scientific value to the book, he wishes to dispel the faulty arguments of the book. He also notes that
most creationist books he would not review as they are “intellectual junk food,” but this book
obviously needs some attention. Orr also discusses Behe's credentials, noting he is “the real thing: a
research scientist, someone who does experiments, gets grants, and publishes papers.”Lastly, Orr notes
that Behe claims his scientific views are driven by the facts. Then, Orr goes into his arguments, after
Irreducible Complexity, or how Behe views it, is the point that Orr dedicates most of his paper
to. A brief history of the complexity of the cell is reviewed in Darwin's Black Box to give some
background for non-biology people, showing that until recently, the cell was viewed as a very simple
structure, but in the past 50 years, it has been discovered the cell is very, very complex. Behe leads the
reader, according to Orr, to believe that no one thought that the cell was complex before biochemists
delved into the cell's structures and opened up a world of complexity. Orr says that evolutionists had
always thought the cell as complex as it took 3 billion years for the first one to naturally develop, and
another billion years to get to where we are now. Behe, according to Orr, tried to make a “crisis
Nobody denies that the blood-clotting cascade is a particularly complex structure in humans and
animals. Behe uses his book to ram that point home, and to point out that the system shows IC. Orr
contends that irreducibly complex structures may exist in nature, but that they can be explained by
Darwinism, by the process of natural selection in particular. Behe says otherwise, of course. Natural
selection cannot explain irreducibly complex structures or systems. Darwinism's problem, according to
Behe, is “it requires that each step in the evolution of a system be functional and adaptive.” So, instead,
a idea long since abandoned is resurrected by IC, intelligent design. Are irreducibly complex systems a
sign that natural selection, and hence, Darwinism in trouble, or can natural selection explain IC? If
Darwinism cannot explain IC, then, according to Orr, Behe has made a remarkable discovery. Behe's
In the next paragraph of his review, Orr claims that Behe's argument is “just plain wrong.” Orr
says his argument is “fatally flawed.” What, according to Orr, is Behe's fatal mistake? Behe rejects the
possibility that natural selection can explain IC. Orr's argument is thus:
“An irreducibly complex system can be built by gradually adding parts that, while
very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps).
Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it
merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way
that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded
into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required...The point is
because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier
This quote was taken as a whole and put into this paper because there is no simpler way to make the
point Orr is making. Orr then uses the example of the evolution of air bladders into lungs for land-
dwelling creatures. At first, the air bladders were only advantageous for water-dwelling creatures, but
as they evolved, and animals migrated to land, producing limbs for walking , they became thoroughly
terrestrial and the lungs became necessary for the animal's survival. “Although this process is
thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex.” From this, Orr
concludes “Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system “have to be
there from the beginning” is dead wrong.” This also means that there is not necessarily a possible
reconstruction of the evolutionary pathway a structure has taken. Just because of this, a system's
H. Allen Orr is not the discoverer of this process, though, for that credit must go to H.J. Muller
who worked the details of this out in 1939. Muller's work showed that a gene that which first improved
a function routinely became an essential part of an evolutionary pathway. “So the gradual evolution of
irreducibly complex systems is not only possible, it's expected,” according to Orr. A direct result of
Muller's work was showing that “some genes are duplications of others.” Somehow, a copy of a gene
was made. The point can then be made that the copy was not necessary as it was not there before. Over
time, the copy will change, and assume a new function. Eventually the copy becomes essential. This,
according to Orr, shows that evolution can create IC. Examples of duplicated genes in our own bodies
include myoglobin, which has the job of carrying oxygen to muscles, and hemoglobin, which carries
oxygen in our blood. Both of these are now essential. Behe fleetingly mentions this subject, according
to Orr, and may not have talked about it in his book because admitting that two genes are so similar, he
would have to admit, then, that the organism could have got along, and must have at one point, without
the copy.
Those are Orr's main arguments against IC. From what I can gather, these arguments seem
pretty logical, and he backs them up with biological evidence. The explanation of how IC came about
through Darwinism seems particularly sound, and, overall, Orr seems to have done a good job
debunking many of Behe's claims and evidence. But, as on many occasions before, Behe wrote a
response to Orr's paper, and it is time to air his disputes with Orr, to get more information so a better
Behe first talks about how Orr tried to take priority in his field over that of Behe's. This was not
mentioned before as it is not particularly relevant to the debate, but Behe seems to want to argue the
point, writing a paragraph about it in his relatively shorter paper. Although he makes a good point
claiming that evolution is driven by molecular changes, and hence, is part of biochemistry, this is not of
particular importance.
Moving onto Orr's main argument, explaining IC through addition of a part, and later necessity
of that part, Behe gives a somewhat short, if very odd answer. He for some reason gets Orr's argument
confused, thinking that Orr was talking about the mousetrap analogy when explaining his point, but Orr
obviously was in fact not, as he was explaining how IC can come about through evolution by a simple
Gene duplication is the next argument which Behe attacks, and he does a much better job. As
may be remembered, Orr claimed that Behe never successfully explained gene duplication in Darwin's
Black Box, but Behe claims he did. He says he does “on pages 89-90 of my book, concluding “The
sequence similarities are there for all to see...By itself, however, the hypothesis of gene
duplication...says nothing about how any particular protein or protein system was first produced.” Behe
“all the cells in you body descended from one fertilized egg cell. The differences,
however, are not due to Darwinian natural selection. Rather, there is a very clever, built-
are “intentionally” produced by your body from a pre-existing stock of just a few
process, and that natural selection does not gain any evidence from Orr's explanation anyway.
After arguing Orr's two main points, Behe goes onto make some more points, saying that
natural selection is in need of more evidence than just sequence similarity, and he is right, in my
opinion, on that point. He goes onto explain his hallmark example, the bacterial flagellum, and how
complex it is, going through all the different parts, as he must have done in his book also. Behe then
makes this statement, the “rotary nature of the flagellum has been recognized for 25 years. During this
time not a single paper has been published in the biochemical literature even attempting to show how
such a machine might have developed by natural selection.” I, having contributed little in the way of
ideas to this paper, decided to take Behe up on this statement, and did an Internet search for papers that
explain how the flagellum may have come about. Here are my results:
1. In Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum, N.J. Matzke
shows that two parts of the flagellum are not even necessary for the flagellum to function.
2. G. Kuwajima showed that of the 497 amino acids in a flagellum, almost a third of them can be
cut out and it will still function. This work was published in the Journal of Bacteriology.
3. Finally, different bacteria are known to have different number of flagellar proteins. This shows
that, at least to me, there are simpler flagellum, and these would be the flagellum with the lesser
number of proteins. Shown by David Ussery who has written a paper on this subject.
I tend to think that these reports and studies show that the bacterial flagellum are not irreducibly
complex. Although there just may be structures that are, the flagellum is not one of them. Behe will
either have to find a new example, or give up on his case, since it seems to have been thoroughly
disproved.
I would have to say, at the end of the day, assuming that natural selection could not explain IC
structures, intelligent design is not a logical explanation. We can say that, in Behe's case, mousetraps
are designed. Fine, everyone in their right mind would believe that. Well, Behe then wishes us to think
that means something that has the characteristic of IC is also designed. I say no. Why not? We know
there are people, or robots, or something that make mousetraps. We do not have any evidence of
anything supernatural, or any other type of designer who could have made things that are irreducibly
Behe has a lot to say. He should not be ignored. No good scientist in their right mind should
ignore what he has to say because they might not like his conclusion (intelligence), but people should
also not blindly accept what he has to say because it conforms to their religious dogma. It seems the
points which Orr brought up were good ones. Behe successfully battled one of them. He also made a
claim in his response which I believe I disproved. The only thing we can hope for is the scientific
Behe, Michael J. The Sterility of Darwinism. 1997 Access Resource Network 10 Oct. 2008
<http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brresp.htm>
Matzke, N. J. Evolution in (brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. 2003
The Talk Origins Archive 10 Oct. 2008 <http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html>
Orr, H. Allen. “Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again).” Boston Review Dec. 1996/Jan. 1997. 10 Oct.
2008. <http://www.bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html>
Ussery, David. 1999. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios 70:
40-45. <http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html>