Editing Darwin's Black Box

{{short description|1996 book by Michael Behe}}
{{Infobox book 
| image = File:Darwin's Black Box.jpeg
| image_size = 200px
| caption = Cover of the first edition
| author = [[Michael Behe]]
| name = Darwin's Black Box
| country = United States
| language = English
| subject = [[Intelligent design]]
| publisher = [[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]]
| pub_date = 1996
| media_type = Print ([[Hardcover]] and [[Paperback]])
| isbn =  978-0-684-82754-4
| dewey= 575 20
| congress= QH367.3 .B43 1996
| oclc= 34150540
| preceded_by = 
|followed_by = [[The Edge of Evolution]]
}}

'''''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution''''' (1996; second edition 2006) is a book by [[Michael Behe|Michael J. Behe]], a professor of biochemistry at [[Lehigh University]] in [[Pennsylvania]] and a senior fellow of the [[Discovery Institute]]'s [[Center for Science and Culture]]. In the book Behe presents his notion of [[irreducible complexity]] and argues that its presence in many biochemical systems therefore indicates that they must be the result of [[intelligent design]] rather than [[molecular evolution|evolutionary processes]]. In 1993, Behe had written a chapter on [[blood clotting]] in ''[[Of Pandas and People]],'' presenting essentially the same arguments but without the name "irreducible complexity,"<ref name=dot>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/rncse/24/5/design-trial-dover-pennsylvania |title=Design on Trial in Dover, Pennsylvania &#124; NCSE |author=Nicholas J Matzke |author-link=Nick Matzke |date=September–October 2004 |publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]  |quote=Even Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument (though not the signature phrase) appears in print for the first time in the second edition of ''Pandas'' |access-date=2009-07-28}}</ref> which he later presented in very similar terms in a chapter in ''Darwin's Black Box.'' Behe later agreed that he had written both and agreed to the similarities when he defended intelligent design at the ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' trial.<ref>{{cite web | last = Matzke | first = Nick | author-link = Nick Matzke | title = God of the Gaps…in your own knowledge. Luskin, Behe, & blood-clotting | date = Jan 4, 2009 | access-date = 2009-01-05 | publisher = [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)]]  | url = http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/god-of-the-gapsin-your-own-knowledge-luskin-behe-blood-clotting.html }}</ref><ref name=KvDd11>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11am.html |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 11, AM: Michael Behe |access-date=2009-07-28}}</ref>

The book has received highly critical reviews by many scientists, arguing that the assertions made by Behe fail with logical scrutiny and amount to [[pseudoscience]]. For example, in a review for ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', [[Jerry Coyne]] panned the book for what he saw as usage of [[quote mining]] and spurious [[ad hominem]] attacks.<ref name=Coyne1996/> ''[[The New York Times]]'' also, in a critique written by [[Richard Dawkins]], condemned the book for having promoted discredited arguments.<ref name=Dawkins/> Despite this, the book has become a commercial success, and, as a bestseller,<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3550 |title=Darwin's Black Box &#124; Center for Science and Culture |access-date=2013-12-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170225160931/http://www.discovery.org/a/3550 |archive-date=2017-02-25 |url-status=dead }}</ref> it received a mostly supportive review from ''[[Publishers Weekly]]'', which described it as having a "spirited, witty critique of neo-Darwinian thinking" that may "spark interest."<ref>''[[Publishers Weekly]]''</ref> The [[conservatism|politically conservative]] magazine ''[[National Review]]'' also voted ''Darwin's Black Box'' one of their top 100 non-fiction books of the century, using a panel that included [[Discovery Institute]] member [[George Gilder]].<ref name="National Review">{{cite web|url=http://old.nationalreview.com/100best/100_books.html |title=The 100 best non-fiction books of the century. |publisher=[[National Review]] |access-date=2009-07-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100304170456/http://old.nationalreview.com/100best/100_books.html |archive-date=March 4, 2010 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=10&isFellow=true | title = George Gilder, Senior Fellow - Discovery Institute | publisher = [[Discovery Institute]]|access-date=January 26, 2014}}</ref>

== Summary ==
The "[[black box]]" in the title refers to the conceptual tool in which, for one reason or another, the internal workings of a device are taken for granted, so that its function may be discussed.  The [[Philosophy|philosophical tool]] is commonly used in scientific discourse, and Behe notes that understandings of cellular structure and other aspects of [[microbiology]] were not much understood when [[Charles Darwin]] was alive.  He then states that he plans to delve into the issue.

Behe begins by reminding the general reader of [[paradigm shift]]s in the [[history of science]], in which the foundations and assumptions of theories are examined, sometimes resulting in the rejection of an entire past theory.  Behe suggests that such a paradigm shift in biology (and particularly in [[evolution]]) is imminent due to recent discoveries (circa 1996) in [[biochemistry]].  Behe acknowledges acceptance of the theory of evolution by "the great majority" of scientists, and he states that "most (though not all) do so based on authority."

Behe states that elucidations of the evolutionary history of various biological features typically assume the existence of certain abilities as their starting point, such as [[Charles Darwin]]'s example of a cluster of light-sensitive spots evolving into an [[human eye|eye]] via a [[Evolution of the eye|series of intermediate steps]]. He then points out that Darwin dismissed the need to explain the origin of the 'simple' light-sensitive spot, summarizes the modern understanding of the biochemistry of vision and claims that many other evolutionary explanations face a similar challenge.

Behe next introduces and defines the concept of [[irreducible complexity]] as a system with a series of parts in which the removal of any part causes the entire system to cease functioning, offering a [[Mousetrap#Spring-loaded bar mousetraps|spring-loaded bar mousetrap]] as a familiar example.  In the following chapters, Behe discusses the apparent irreducible complexity of several biological systems, including the [[cilium]], the bacterial [[flagellum]], [[Coagulation|blood clotting]], the [[immune system]], and [[Vesicle (biology)#Vesicle formation and transport|vesicular transport]].  Behe claims the underlying complexity and biochemical mechanisms of the systems are vastly under-appreciated, and identifies other, similar systems.

Behe identifies one of the primary counter-arguments of irreducible complexity, [[Irreducible complexity#Gradual adaptation to new functions|gradual adaptation]]—that certain systems may have been co-opted from an original, unrelated role to assume a new function as an irreducibly complex system.  He counter-argues that though it is impossible to consider all possible roles for any component, it is extremely implausible that components can fortuitously change function within a complex system and that the focus of the theory changes from making to modifying components and recounts unsuccessful attempts to discover evolutionary pathways for complex systems within [[scientific journal]]s.  Behe states that though he did identify assertions that evolution had occurred, he found none that had been supported by experiment or calculation, and concludes the book by offering [[intelligent design]] as a solution to irreducible complexity.

== Reception ==
''Darwin's Black Box'' was not well received by the [[scientific community]], which rejected Behe's premises and arguments. [[Kenneth R. Miller|Kenneth Miller]] described Behe's argument as an updated version of the [[Teleological argument|argument from design]] with reference to biochemistry (which was echoed by other reviewers),<ref name = Dorit>{{cite journal | first = Robert | last = Dorit | url = http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-review-of-darwins-black-box-the-biochemical-challenge-to-evolution-by-michael-j-behe | title = A review of Darwin's Black Box | journal = American Scientist | year = 1997 | access-date = 2009-03-16  | volume = September/October 1997}}</ref><ref name=Orr>{{cite journal|journal=[[Boston Review]] |last=Orr |first=H. Allen |author-link=H. Allen Orr |title=Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again): The latest attack on evolution is cleverly argued, biologically informed—and wrong |volume=22 |issue=6 |date=December 1996 – January 1997 |access-date=2007-11-02 |url=http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070630185235/http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html |archive-date=June 30, 2007 }}</ref> and also cites areas in biochemistry and the fossil record which demonstrate currently irreducibly complex systems evolving.  Miller also describes Behe's theory as [[falsifiability|unfalsifiable]], arguing that it arbitrarily ignores evidence that shows the evolution of a biochemical system.<ref name = Miller>{{cite journal | url = http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/behe-review/index.html | access-date = 2007-11-02  | last = Miller | first = Kenneth R. | author-link = Kenneth R. Miller | year = 1996 | journal = Creation/Evolution | volume = 16 | pages = 36–40 | title = Darwin's Black Box, reviewed by Kenneth R. Miller}}</ref>  On his [[Pharyngula (blog)|blog]], [[PZ Myers]] described it as "...an example of pseudoscientific [[dreck]] that has been enormously influential."<ref>{{cite web | url = http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/bad_books.php | title = Bad books | format = php | last = Myers | first = Paul | author-link = PZ Myers | access-date = 2007-11-02 | date = 2006-11-22 | publisher = [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080509034810/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/bad_books.php | archive-date = 2008-05-09 | url-status = dead }}</ref>  In a review for ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', [[Jerry Coyne]] described the book hailing from 'populist' creationism that failed to deal with the evidence for evolution honestly.  Coyne also accuses Behe of [[quote mining]] and using [[ad hominem]] attacks against scientists while 'timidly accepting' evolution.<ref name=Coyne1996>{{cite journal | author = Coyne, J.A. | author-link = Jerry Coyne| year = 1996 | title = Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by MJ Behe | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | volume = 383 | pages = 227-28| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210718084936/https://www.nature.com/articles/383227a0.pdf?error=cookies_not_supported&code=dfd9e027-21e9-4efb-9909-d02069cdfa16 |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/383227a0.pdf |archive-date=2021-07-18 | doi = 10.1038/383227a0 | bibcode =   1996Natur.383..227.}}</ref>

A review on the pro-evolution website [[talk.origins]], described the book as "...an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance" and that within it systems were labeled "irreducibly complex" if ''Behe'' was not able to envision a simpler system that still worked.  The review also stated that the theory was [[Falsifiability|unfalsifiable]] (echoing Miller<ref name = Miller/>), with faulty logic that worked because Behe did not provide crucial facts that would illustrate its failings.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html | title = Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? | first = Keith | last = Robison | date = 1996-12-11 | access-date = 2007-11-02 | publisher = [[talk.origins]] }}</ref>  [[H. Allen Orr]] has called Behe's argument in the book "...just plain wrong," arguing that [[Irreducible complexity#Gradual adaptation to new functions|gradual adaptation]] could produce irreducibly complex systems.  Orr points to examples of gradual adaptation already known (citing to the work of [[Hermann Joseph Muller|H. J. Muller]] in the early 20th century<ref>{{cite journal | first = H. J. | last = Muller | author-link = Hermann Joseph Muller | title = Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics | journal = Biological Reviews | volume = 14 | year = 1939 | pages = 261–80 | doi = 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1939.tb00934.x | issue = 3| s2cid = 85668728 }}</ref>).  Behe is also criticized for claiming a [[conspiracy of silence (expression)|conspiracy of silence]] among scientists regarding the 'failure of Darwinism'.<ref name = Dorit/>

[[Richard Dawkins]] criticized the book for ''The New York Times'' as being logically flawed by setting up a [[False dilemma|false dichotomy]] in which Darwinian evolution is rejected despite an enormous amount of positive evidence due to a single apparent failure to explain [[irreducible complexity]]. Dawkins further commented that it was an argument Darwin himself had anticipated, and he stated that the example of a bacterial flagellum used by Behe had in fact been refuted by [[Kenneth R. Miller]] in ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]''.<ref name=Dawkins>{{cite news | last = Dawkins | first = Richard | author-link = Richard Dawkins | work=[[The New York Times]] | date = 2007-07-01 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/review/Dawkins-t.html?pagewanted=print | access-date = 2007-11-02 | title = Inferior Design }}</ref> Behe has responded to some of these criticisms.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_toresp.htm | last = Behe | first = Michael | author-link = Michael Behe | date = 1996-08-16 | access-date = 2007-11-02 | title = Behe Responds to Postings in Talk Origins Newsgroup }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brresp.htm | journal = [[Boston Review]] | volume = 22 | issue = 1 | title = The Sterility of Darwinism | last = Behe | first = Michael | access-date = 2014-11-09 | author-link = Michael Behe }}</ref>  The [[conservatism|politically conservative]] magazine ''[[National Review]]'' voted ''Darwin's Black Box'' one of their top 100 non-fiction books of the century. The panel included [[George Gilder]], a [[Discovery Institute]] member.<ref name="National Review"/><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=10&isFellow=true | title = George Gilder | publisher = [[Discovery Institute]]}}</ref>

==Creation==
In a review of Behe's paper 'Design vs. Randomness in Evolution: Where Do the Data Point?', [[Denis Lamoureux]] criticized ''Darwin's Black Box'' as having become central to fundamentalist and evangelical anti-evolution critiques against biological evolution. Behe supports the historically incorrect misrepresentation that Darwin's views on the origin of life were atheistic, when ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' repeatedly refers to a Creator in a positive and supportive context as impressing laws on matter. Though Behe has avoided committing himself to the view that God intervenes directly in nature to create purportedly irreducibly complex structures, ''Darwin's Black Box'' briefly speculates that divine intervention might have caused the direct creation of a cell from which all of life evolved, supporting creationist views of miraculous acts of creation, but ironically echoing Darwin's stated: "view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one." 

Behe's claim that the creation of an original first cell represents a "gap" in the laws of nature needing divine intervention appears to be the problematic [[God of the gaps]] position which is subject to the gaps being filled by scientific discoveries. 

Behe's thesis that irreducible structures are created in "one fell swoop" is opposed by other biochemists, including many who are devout Christians, and has no support from the fossil record.<ref name=3Behe>{{cite web |url=https://sites.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/behe.pdf |title= A Black Box or a Black Hole? A Response to Michael Behe |author=Denis O. Lamoureux |author-link=Denis Lamoureux |date=July 1999 |publisher=Canadian Catholic Review |pages=67–73 |access-date=2009-02-14}}</ref>

== Peer review controversy ==
In 2005, while testifying for the defense in the ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover]]'' trial, Behe claimed under oath that the book had received a more thorough [[peer review]] than a scholarly article in a refereed journal,<ref>{{cite web |url= http://ncse.com/webfm_send/309 |format= PDF |title= Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26: Disclosure of Expert Testimony of Michael Behe |date= n.d. |access-date= 2009-11-06 |last= Behe |first= Michael |author-link= Michael Behe |publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]}}</ref> a claim which appears to conflict the facts of the book's peer review.<ref>{{cite web|last=Myers |first=Paul |author-link=PZ Myers |title=Behe pwnage |date=2005-10-20 |access-date=2007-11-02 |publisher=[[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] |url=http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/behe_pwnage/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080509084837/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/behe_pwnage/ |archive-date=May 9, 2008 }}</ref> Four of the book's five reviewers (Michael Atchison, [[Robert Shapiro (chemist)|Robert Shapiro]], K. John Morrow, and [[Russell Doolittle]]) have made statements that contradict or otherwise do not support Behe's claim of the book passing a rigorous peer review.

===Michael Atchison===
Atchison has stated that he did not review the book at all, but spent 10 minutes on the phone receiving a brief overview of the book which he then endorsed without ever seeing the text.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9902/atchison.html |title= Mustard Seeds |first= Michael |last= Atchison |date= 2004-06-11 |access-date= 2007-11-02 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20071110034552/http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9902/atchison.html | archive-date = 2007-11-10 | url-status = dead }}</ref>

===Robert Shapiro===
[[Robert Shapiro (chemist) |Robert Shapiro]]:  Shapiro has said that he reviewed the book, and while he agreed with some of its analysis of origin-of-life research, he thought its conclusions are false, though the best explanation of the argument from design that was available.<ref name= shapiro>{{cite web |url=http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/robert-shapiro.html |date= 2005-10-22 |publisher=[[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] |title= Robert Shapiro on Behe and ID |last= Evans |first= Skip}}</ref>  Had the book been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and this comment had appeared, the review provided by Shapiro would have forced the conclusions regarding [[intelligent design]] to be changed or removed.<ref name=shapiro/>

===K. John Morrow===
Morrow criticized the book as appalling and unsupported, which contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/robert_shapiro.html#comment-50770 |title= Comment on 'Robert Shapiro on Behe and ID' |publisher=[[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] |date= 2005-10-24 |access-date= 2007-11-02 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070930153712/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/robert_shapiro.html#comment-50770 |archive-date= 2007-09-30 |url-status= dead}}</ref>

===Russell Doolittle===
[[Russell Doolittle]], upon whom Behe based much of his discussion of blood clotting, described it as misrepresenting a simplified explanation he had given in a lecture, and presenting a fallacious creationist miscalculation of improbability by omitting known options,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/doolittle.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040101081932/http://bostonreview.net/br22.1/doolittle.html |archive-date=2004-01-01 |title= A Delicate Balance |publisher=[[Boston Review]] |first=Russell |last=Doolittle |access-date= 2008-12-12}} "Originally published in the February/ March 1997 issue of Boston Review"</ref> which also contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.<ref>{{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/more_on_peer_review_of_behes_b.php |date=* |title=Two of Behe's Reviewers Speak Out }}</ref>

In the same trial, Behe eventually testified under oath that "There are no peer-reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."<ref>[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 88 of 139|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science, p88]]</ref> The result of the trial was the [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion|ruling]] that intelligent design is not [[science]] and is essentially [[religious]] in nature.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
* {{cite web|url=http://www.simonsays.com/content/content.cfm?sid=33&pid=407734 |title=The publisher's webpage for ''Darwin's Black Box'' |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050116082211/http://www.simonsays.com/content/content.cfm?sid=33&pid=407734 |archive-date=January 16, 2005 }}
* [https://books.google.com/books?id=7L8mkq4jG6EC&q=creationist Scanned copy (not all pages included) and reviews at Google books]
* {{cite web | url = http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html | first = John | last = McDonald | title = A reducibly complex mousetrap }}
* {{cite web|url=http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html |title=A biochemists response to the "biochemical challenge to evolution |access-date=2004-11-02 |date=2000-08-10 |last=Ussery |first=David |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041022082811/http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html |archive-date=October 22, 2004 }}
* {{cite web | url = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html | title = The Mullerian Two-Step: Add a part, make it necessary or, Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is silly }}
* {{cite web | url = https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html | title = Watch the documentary for free, click watch program | last = ''Intelligent Design On Trial'' NOVA Documentary| website = [[PBS]] }}

[[Category:1996 non-fiction books]]
[[Category:American non-fiction books]]
[[Category:Biochemistry literature]]
[[Category:Books by Michael Behe]]
[[Category:English-language non-fiction books]]
[[Category:Free Press (publisher) books]]
[[Category:Intelligent design books]]