I found the book excellent. The author was humorous, logical, and understandable. He sets a challenge for scientists — especially molecular Biologists. I found it an interesting book. However, Mr. Behe does not deny Darwinian evolution in his book. Also, in spite of his well-done book he is wrong in some of his conclusions.
I have listed 10 items:
(1) Mr. Behe accepts Darwinian evolution, including natural selection, over the millions of years, but he puts a limit on it.
Some Quotes:
(A) p. X: “Modern science has learned that, ultimately, life is a molecular phenomenon: All organisms are made of molecules that act as the nuts and bolts, gears and pulleys of biological systems. … Biochemistry … has as its mission the exploration of the very foundation of life.”
(B) p. 5: “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 fairly respect the work of colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think the evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin’s mechanism — natural selection working on variation — might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.”
(C) Pp 175-176: “… To explain that Darwinian evolution cannot explain everything in nature is not to say that evolution, random mutation, and natural selection do not occur; they have been observed (at least in cases of microevolution) many different times. Like the sequence analysis, I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent.
… Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems.”
(2) He says intelligent design is necessary to explain the origin of irreducible complex biochemical systems. These were created on the order of billions of years ago.
Interesting Pages follow:
(A) Pp 227 – 231: “The irreducible complex biochemical systems that I have discussed in this book did not have to be produced recently, it is entirely possible, based simply on an examination of the systems themselves, that they were designed billions of years ago and that they have been passed down to the present by normal processes of cellular reproduction. Perhaps a speculative scenario will illustrate the point. Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all the irreducible complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not “turned on”. … The cell containing the designed systems then was left on autopilot to reproduce, mutate, eat and be eaten, bump against rocks, and suffer the vagaries of life on earth.”
(B) Pp 229 – 230: “… evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects, genetic drift, gene flow, linkage, meiotic drive, transposition (the transfer of gene between widely separated species by nonsexual means), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems may have been designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.”
(C) p. 230: “… Biologists who are working at the cellular level or above can continue their research without paying much attention to design, because above the cellular level organisms are black boxes, and design is difficult to prove. So those who labor in the fields of paleontology, comparative anatomy, population genetics, and biogeography should not invoke design until the molecular sciences show design has an effect at those higher levels.”
(D) p. 231: “… Since the simplest possible design scenario posits a single cell — formed billions of years ago — that already contained all information to produce descendent organisms, other studies could test this scenario by attempting to calculate how much DNA would be required to code the information. …”
(3) Mr. Behe suggests that wherever it is possible natural, rather than supernatural, explanations should be sought for biological phenomenon. BUT each biochemical case must be considered on it’s own as a result of purely natural means or as a result of design.
Quotes:
However he takes exception to the following:
(A) p. 238: “Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material means, without invoking the supernatural.”
Operational science takes no position about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural; it only requires that this factor is not to be invoked in scientific explanations.”
(4) Mr Behe makes an excellent point — Separation of these complex systems from others is reasonable — an evolutionist must be able to show how these complex systems could develop gradually not only through rhetoric, but by experiment.
(5) As he points out the Intelligent design concept is old. It has kept changing as science progresses. It is like a theory of the gaps — in his case, if there is a gap in the understanding of how evolution would allow for certain processes it must be explained by intelligent design. Intelligent design is there to fill in the gaps. As more research goes on these gaps may slowly be filled until it is possible not to appeal to intelligent design.
Appealing to intelligent design doesn’t in itself solve the problem of the gap — (actually it doesn’t solve anything. It may even hinder Intelligent design researchers to attempt to even solve it), but it may motivate a deeper study of the problem with evolution in mind.
(6) On page 239 Mr. Behe says he is Roman Catholic. If intelligent design is real we will want to know who this designer was (possibly is). Of course, every religion is going to claim the Designer(s) is their God(s). Is this Designer(s) natural or some kind of supernatural entity? Is the Designer(s) some kind of alien being?
If a Designer designed some biochemical processes in cells, who designed the Designer; who designed the Designer of the Designer, etc.?
An aside: The Roman Catholic Pope has proclaimed the acceptance of Darwinian evolution (with some restrictions) as a fact for the vast majority of Christians. All other Christian churches (a minority) are offspring (daughters) of the mother church — will they be far behind?
(7) The author mentions that the Big Bang is consistent with the Judeo-Christian concept of beginnings, but not consistent with other religion’s concepts. However he doesn’t mention that the end is inconsistent with the Judeo-Christian concept of the end. Astronomical evidence shows that our universe will have no end. It will keep on expanding forever; even accelerating in the expansion forever and ever — no collapse.
(8) He speculates on page 239 the number of scientists that believe in a God is about the same as the general public — about 90%. Not according to surveys:
Actually surveys show otherwise. In 1997, the British science journal Nature published the results of a random sampling of 1000 American scientists (from the latest edition of American Men and Women of Science), comparing these findings to a similar study in 1916 by the psychologist of religion, James Leuba.
Strong in their convictions that there is no God: 1916 -> 41%, 1997 -> 45%
Agnostic — doubted the existence of a God: 1916 -> 17%, 1997 -> 15%
Personal belief in God 1916 -> 42%, 1997 -> 39%
Of the Biologists that disbelieved in a God the percentage is 69%.
Of the Physicists that disbelieved in a God the percentage is 79%.
Among the eminent scientists that believe in a God, averaged over all fields of science, is 7%.
Mr. Behe’s speculations are way out.
(9) Science is the one human endeavor that has made an enormous amount of progress in the last few centuries. A main reason is that at it’s core science is “an atheistic endeavor”!
By atheism is meant the realization that there is no supernatural realm, therefore there are no supernatural entities. The appeal to supernatural agents is unnecessary to explain reality.
Science assumes no supernatural; the same as atheism. So, science is atheistic.
Some entities that are usually considered supernatural are angels, evil spirits, auras, good spirits, Satan, holy ghosts, God(s). From a science perspective these entities do not exist, so have no influence on anything. If someone claims one of these exist, then that entity is natural and not something separate from the natural. If somebody says something is caused by a “supernatural” entity he is really a pseudoscientist, or better yet, a New Ager.
No one can give me one example of a “Law” or principle or theory in science that appears to depend on or mentions a supernatural entity, including God? These entities, including a God are unnecessary in Science. Science is atheistic.
I cannot see the advantage of appealing to Intelligent design in science. It doesn’t help explain geological and astronomical events, or even help find answers — it actually prevents the processes of science in finding realistic answers. The intelligent design argument, as is creationism, is just an underhanded way of trying to inject the supernatural into science.
It may be argued that most scientists before Darwin’s time were not atheists. Rather, they tended to see their science as a way of discovering God’s created order.
However, it was just the beginning of science. Many of the early scientists believed in Astrology and Psychic phenomenon. A good example is Isaac Newton. Does this mean Astrology or New Age is real and true? Are these necessary for the development of Science? I think not. People just didn’t know better then.
One may ask, are we to believe that such notable scientists as Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Linnaeus, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Pasteur, Mendel, Kelvin, Maxwell, etc. were not REAL scientists?
They were real scientists. However their contributions to science did not include the supernatural. They may have been motivated by religious considerations, but their final scientific explanations were atheistic — not supernatural.
None of modern science goes beyond the natural. This includes Quantum Physics. You cannot show one example where the supernatural is used to explain any successful science!
Scientists, whatever their private beliefs, assume no supernatural realm as it applies to their profession while they are practicing it. In their work, they do NOT consider a supernatural explanation realistic or appropriate. Whatever their private supernatural beliefs, that may motivate them, do not make them conclude supernatural explanations in their final scientific output.
Ironically, if a God of the Universe exists, this God seems to bless and reward with success those that deny the existence of the supernatural in their investigation of reality. Interesting!
(10) After reading the book and making the comments above I got the bright idea of checking the internet about comments on Mr. Behe’s book. There are a lot. Here are some of the more interesting ones:
Publish or perish. Contrary to Mr. Behe there is a lot published on the evolution of the systems he mentions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html
an interesting review of Mr. Behe’s book:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
In conclusion: Mr. Behe does allow for a major Darwinian factor in life, but he does appeal to the supernatural for anything that is, at the moment, not easily explainable by Darwinian evolution. This is the dangerous part — as soon as a supernatural agent is used to explain something it isn’t science anymore, it is religion. Science is so successful because it is a purely materialistic, human endeavor.
O. Hooge
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Naturalism and Religious Experience 