Is the book "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe the end of evolution?

I recently read, " Darwin’s Black Box" by Michael J Behe. He presents an overwhelming case against Darwin’s theory on a biochemical level. Behe uses what he calls “irreducible complexity” as the backbone of his belief that evolution has an uphill battle if not an impossible road to travel to be possible.

In reading this book it has convinced me that evolution ,as Darwin has suggested, is impossible. Am I just a sucker for a well written book or does Behe all but debunk evolution? Why has this book not become more mainstream?

I know that evolution has been debated for decades without any give on either side.Hope this is not a tired subject.

No.

WTF is “irreducible complexity”? is it just a fancy new name for the watchmaker arguement?

No, he hasn’t the real scientific debate over whether evolutionary farmework was a correct (using a lose defintion of correct as the natuarl sciences can’t prove anything 100%) or not ended many decades before the real scientific debate over whether the relativity and QM frameworks where correct (infact before hese two theories were ever formulated).

You still see alot of sites on the internet claiming to of debunked relativity, needless to say they’re all bunk.

I think Behe’s argument is similar to the watchmaker argument, but not quite exactly the same.

If you are interested in in-depth criticism of Behe’s work:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Behe is using something similar to the watchmaker argument, and he seems to either be unaware of or ignore completely much scientific data.

In reply to tars tarks
Read the book it explains it very well. To shorten what is said in the book on irreducible complexity is to sell it short.

It does resemble the watchmaker arguement but gives specific biochemical examples of things like the watch (such as the human eye) that are so complex you cannot reduce them to indiviual parts that could have been evolved. In other words there are parts in the human eye that require several other parts and systems to work as one.Missing one ,the whole system collapses.So in order for the eye to have been evolved the mutation would have to have been all of these parts at once and is beyond probability of happenning.

Believe me I don’t do it justice

I would prefer comments from people who have read part or are somewhat familiar with the book.

**

Behe spoke at my university recently, to an audience of professional molecular biologists. Pretty much everyone thought his argument was a sad joke. You have to understand that Behe isn’t very honest. I read partway through his book, and quit because I got too frustrated with the fact that Behe was twisting the truth, knowing that he could get away with it because his target audience doesn’t know enough about biology.

**

“Sucker” is a bit harsh, but Behe has indeed deceived you. Search for his name in GD and you’ll find earlier threads in which we go into more detail. The two big problems:

1.) Behe’s argument is based on the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. As many of my coworkers pointed out to him, if you just say “our current understanding of evolution can’t explain this,” then pretty much any scientist admits that there are things we don’t understand yet. The problem is that Behe then goes on to say, “since you can’t explain it, I win by default, and I choose to explain it by magic.”

2.) Behe is a very dishonest guy, in more ways than one. To wit:

a.) He presents himself differently to different audiences, to the point that it’s hard to find out what he believes. To my coworkers, he presented himself as basically being a theistic evolutionist. To a creationist audience, however, he’ll present himself as being a creationist, and go on about transitional fossils and suchlike.

b.) He doesn’t accurately report the scientific facts which he uses to support his arguments. (For that matter, he time and again attacks strawman versions of evolution.)

c.) Ultimately, Behe refuses to admit any possibility that he might be wrong. When a scientist confronted him with an apparently random process at work in creating IC structures, Behe replied that it only looked random, and God was secretly manipulating things behind the scenes. Similarly, Behe could just as well demand that you prove that there isn’t an invisible unicorn in the room. See? That proves unicorns really exist. Behe is living in his own thought bubble, and even when his arguments are debunked, he retreats into claims that God is secretly operating behind the scenes and just making things look like evolution is at work.

d.) Behe is generally a weaselly guy. Remember, you’ve read a book in which Behe presents his ideas without anyone else around to challenge them. Plus, like I said, he’s presenting them to non-experts, so he can twist the truth without getting caught. During Q&A at my university, I’m not sure he gave a straightforward answer to even a single question he was asked, because his arguments really don’t survive knowledgeable scrutiny. So far as I know, Behe refuses to engage in a moderated debate on his work. And remember, there’s a reason why this “scientist” has published his work in a book for nonscientists to read, rather than publishing scientific papers for scientists to read.

Good God MC. Put the bottle down and go to bed, or at least preview your posts. I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say.

I don’t think Behe is trying to debunk anything. He is just presenting some hard scientific questions to the scientific community that need to be answered. I haven’t seen one stich of an answer to one of his many questions.

He uses complex science to ask his questions?They demand complex scientific answers? I see none including “BrightNShiney’s” cite.

What specific questions would you like answered?

(you should also search this forum. Behe gets debunked here about once a month)

Ben
Your arguements attack Behe on a personal level but do not answer any of his many profound questions.
Where Can I read one answer to one of Behe’s many questions?

What alternative does Behe offer? I.D. or God just doesn’t cut it in the scientific community-- there is not one single shred of scientific evidence for either.

What “profound” questions are you referring to? Be specific.

Sorry, a few words and commas were missed along with other assorted typos:

No he hasn’t, the real scientific debate over whether the evolutionary framework is correct (using a lose defintion of correct as the natural sciences can’t prove anything 100%) or not ended many decades before the real scientific debate over whether the relativity and QM frameworks were correct (infact before these two theories were ever formulated).

You still see a lot of sites on the internet claiming to of debunked relativity, needless to say they’re all bunk.

From this page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

With regards to antibodies:

It seems Behe is using as evidence the idea that antibodies require complimentary systems to function, but this is in reality not quite true.

I messed up my formatting. The last paragraph in the embedded quote is from TalkOrigins not from Behe’s book.

Just great. Yet another Behe post.

[sigh]

One of Behe’s problems is that he ignores the reality that evolutionary change is affected by the arrow of time as much as any other process: in other words, evolutionary changes are not necessarily reversible.

Consider blood clotting. The biochemical mechanisms responsible for the clotting of blood are quite complex. If even one in the long chain of reactions fails, either blood clots inappropriately (killing the subject) or fails to clot (often killing the subject).

Thus, any subtractive mutation in the biochemical pathways that cause clotting is usually lethal.

What Behe ignores is that it’s much easier to add new links to such a chain than remove them. Taking a step away causes the system to fail, but additional steps can potentially be added in between existing ones without negative effects.

Simple fact is he doesn’t offer an alternative he just asks questions that evolutionary science cannot answer.

I think that answers your OP question. Evolution will be the mainstream theory of biology until someone provides a better answer-- ie, one that explains more observable phenomena and makes better predictions.

Don’t you mean “cannot answer yet?” And note that merely not having an answer at this moment is not ipso facto “proof” that evolution doesn’t work.

Out of curiousity, Brad, are you here to learn, or just to lecture? Because I don’t see a lot of the former from your posts in this thread so far.

Utterly and completely wrong. The entire point of Darwin’s Black Box is to present ID as an alternative.

And BTW, I did address Behe’s arguments. Would you care to address mine?