Darwin's Black Box
Michael Behe
Reviewed by Carl Cox
Michael J Behe is Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University
By Darwin's time, the microscope had allowed scientists to learn about cells, but not get into their inner workings. Behe calls the cells Darwin's black boxes, after the current usage of a black box for an electronic circuit that does some process. Darwin was not aware of the tremendous complexity of cells that biochemistry has been unfolding in recent years. Behe describes some of the complexity of eyes, and the hydrogen peroxide/hydroquinone mixture that the bombardier beetle uses to repel attackers. He calls these systems irreducibly complex. A mousetrap is an example of an irreducibly complex system, consisting of a platform, hammer, spring, catch and holding bar. If any one of these items is missing, mice don't get caught; thus it is either all or nothing. Similarly, the eye and the beetle defense systems contain many protein components that cannot function alone, but require groups of compounds to function.
Behe puts it this way (p 26):
"Biochemistry has demonstrated that any biological apparatus involving more than one cell (such as an organ or a tissue) is necessarily an intricate web of many different, identifiable systems of horrendous complexity. The "simplest" self-sufficient, replication cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins and other molecules, at different times and under variable conditions. Syntheses, degradation, energy generation, replication, maintenance of cell architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, communication-all of these functions take place in virtually every cell, and each function itself requires the interaction of numerous parts."
The cilium that some cells use to swim is examined in detail.
Microtubules in the cilium, linked with nexin, and moved by dynein
arms when energized by ATP, cause the cilium to bend. In addition,
over 200 proteins are found in the cilium. It is thus irreducibly
complex - it will not work if any of the four named components
is missing, and the functions of many of the other 200 proteins
is not yet known. No Darwinian gradual mutation sequence can explain
how this grouping came into existence.
Behe quotes Richard Dawkins explanations describing how complex
systems could arrive step by step, but Behe correctly points out
that Dawkins glosses over details that must be explained. "at
the molecular lever all the 'details' become critical." (p
65) The bacterium flagellum is a very different system that he
also describes in detail: a rotor, stator, and paddle, with an
acid energy system and 40 proteins are required for the many complex
functions. Can Darwin explain how this complexity originated?
Behe says: "The frustrating answer is that we can't tell."
(p 41) But we can evaluate Darwinian claims on the molecular level,
and make a judgment as to its viability. Blood clotting, antibody
production and other biochemical processes are examined in detail,
each one with it's very complex reaction and feedback loops.
Behe reports quite extensive literature searches for explanations
of the origin of life and the subsequent steps which resulted
in complex lifeforms, without success. "Like the sequence
analysts, I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent.
But the root question remains unanswered: What has caused complex
systems to form? No one has ever explained in detailed, scientific
fashion how mutation and natural selection could build the complex,
intricate structures discussed in this book". (p 176)
Scientists now know enough about some DNA functions to design other functions, using (human) intelligent design. How about the possibility that the complexity in biological organisms is a product of intelligent design? William Paley gave an example of a watch found in a remote place indicating a designer. Dawkins refuted this example in The Blind Watchmaker, but Paley's points were sidestepped rather than answered. While intelligent design requires a designer, his identity is not necessary for scientific study. Currently, the method by which complex processes arose is unknown, so allowing a designer does no damage to science, it just moves the unknown one step further away. Michael Behe is a competent biochemist, looking at the topic of evolution in a way that many other competent scientists have embraced. The mainstream 'politically correct' scientific community, apparently, would rather sidestep the evidence that is becoming so abundant than really evaluate it's validity, the time for real evaluation seems to be coming.
Note: There was a discussion on Eyring-l concerning this book and it's claim. It is available from the list archives. Search for Behe.