Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Behe's book does an excellent job in some respects, but fails miserably in others. On the positive side, his descriptions of complex biochemical systems are accurate and not oversimplified. Also to be commended is Behe's frank acceptance of well-confirmed scientific conclusions about the age of the earth and the geneaology of organic life. According to Behe, the evidence both for a very old earth and for common descent are both convincing. His exact words, on page 5, are: "For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world" So Behe, like his colleague Michael Denton, accepts evolution in precisely the sense that special creationists deny it -- you, me, apes, the dinosaurs and bacteria, indeed every living thing, all share a common ancestor. This is not just a lip service concession on Behe's part either. In a debate with Ken Miller, for instance, Behe admitted without dispute that the biochemical evidence for the common ancestry of humans and other animals is compelling. Behe even goes on to say that Darwin "succeeded brillianly" at showing how the "gross anatomy" of complex structures such as the eye could evolve from very simple beginnings. When Behe begins to make his case, namely that Darwinian mechanisms cannot be extended to biochemical structures, things begin to fall apart. He makes one and only one argument for this conclusion, and that argument can be summed up in a single paragraph: An irreducibly complex system "cannot be produced directly . . . by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." This is his whole argument. Unfortunately for him, this argument just doesn't work. As biologist Allen Orr noted in his review of Behe's book: "An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is 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 . . .I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong." But don't take Orr's word for it. The reader is advised to examine critical reviews of Behe's thesis. An excellent review is to be found in Miller's recent book, "Finding Darwin's God." Miller, who like Behe is a Catholic, and takes Behe to task for claiming that Intelligent Design would be accepted as valid science if not for evolutionary dogma. Miller also shows, in a great deal of depth, that Behe's favorite biochemical black boxes (flagella, blood clotting factors, etc) show every indication of having evolved from simpler precursors, contrary to Behe's claim that such is impossible. In summary, Behe's book is recommended as a good "popular science" type introduction to biochemistry. Yet, Behe's central argument against biochemical evolution is simple and easy to refute, as his evolutionist colleagues (Orr, Futuyama, Miller, Doritt, Pennock, etc) have thoroughly and patiently explained.