Editing Michael Behe

{{short description|American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=February 2022}}
{{Infobox scientist
| birth_name        = Michael Joseph Behe
| image             = MichaelBehe.jpg
| caption           = Behe in May 2008
| birth_date        = {{birth date and age|1952|1|18}}<ref>{{Facebook|id=Michael-Behe-105567612814890|name=Michael Behe}}</ref>
| birth_place       = [[Altoona, Pennsylvania]], U.S.
| fields            = [[Biochemistry]]
| workplaces        = [[Lehigh University]]<br />[[Discovery Institute]]'s [[Center for Science and Culture]]
| alma_mater        = [[Drexel University]] ([[Bachelor of Science|BS]])<br/>{{nowrap|[[University of Pennsylvania]] ([[Doctor of Philosophy|PhD]])}}
| thesis_title      = Investigation of some physical chemical factors affecting the gelation of sickle cell hemoglobin
| thesis_url        = https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/244991630
| thesis_year       = 1978
| known_for         = [[Irreducible complexity]]
| occupation        = Professor
}}
{{Intelligent Design}}
'''Michael Joseph Behe'''<ref>{{Google books|sD5CAQAAIAAJ|Directory of Graduate Research|page=503|text="BEHE, MICHAEL JOSEPH"}}</ref> ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|b|iː|h|iː}} {{respell|BEE|hee}}; born January 18, 1952) is an American [[biochemist]] and an advocate of the [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] principle of [[intelligent design]] (ID).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Boudry |first1=Maarten |author-link1=Maarten Boudry |last2=Blancke |first2=Stefaan |last3=Braeckman |first3=Johan |author-link3=Johan Braeckman |date=December 2010 |title=Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience |journal=[[The Quarterly Review of Biology]] |volume=85 |issue=4 |pages=473–482 |doi=10.1086/656904 |pmid=21243965|url=https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482/file/6828579.pdf |hdl=1854/LU-952482 |s2cid=27218269 |hdl-access=free }} Article available from [https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482 Universiteit Gent]</ref><ref name="EurekAlert! 2019">{{cite web | title=Defending Darwin: Scientists respond to attack on evolution | website=EurekAlert! | date=February 11, 2019 | url=https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-02/tcuo-dds021119.php | access-date=February 9, 2020}}</ref> 

Behe serves as professor of biochemistry at [[Lehigh University]] in [[Bethlehem, Pennsylvania]], and as a senior fellow of the [[Discovery Institute]]'s [[Center for Science and Culture]]. He advocates for the validity of the argument for [[irreducible complexity]] (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too [[Complexity|complex]] to be explained by known [[evolution#Evolutionary forces|evolutionary mechanisms]] and are therefore probably the result of [[intelligent design]]. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', where his views were cited in the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is religious in nature.<ref name="conclusion">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#H. Conclusion]]</ref>

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential [[cell (biology)|cellular]] structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the [[scientific community]],<ref>{{cite news |last=Abbey |first=Tristan (Pro) |date=May 13, 2005 |title=Are Darwinists Chickens? |url=http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml |department=Opinions |newspaper=[[The Stanford Review]] |series=Debating the Merits of Intelligent Design. |volume=34 |issue=8 |location=Stanford, CA |publisher=[[Stanford University]] |issn=0092-0258 |access-date=January 21, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080808120635/http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml |archive-date=August 8, 2008  }}
*{{cite news |last=Laddis |first=Paul (Con) |date=May 13, 2005 |title=The Dogmatists' New Clothes |url=http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml |department=Opinions |newspaper=The Stanford Review |series=Debating the Merits of Intelligent Design. |volume=34 |issue=8 |location=Stanford, CA |publisher=Stanford University |issn=0092-0258 |access-date=January 21, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080808120635/http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml |archive-date=August 8, 2008  }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Case |first=Steve |date=August 27, 1999 |title=Why Evolution Must Not Be Ignored |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/zforum/99/nat082799.htm |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |type=Web chat |access-date=January 21, 2014}}</ref> and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe's views and intelligent design.<ref name="Lehigh_position">{{cite web |url=https://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/News/evolution.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051013060737/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm| archive-date=October 13, 2005|title=Department Position on Evolution and 'Intelligent Design' |website=Department of Biological Sciences |publisher=[[Lehigh University]] |location=Bethlehem, PA |access-date=January 31, 2024}} Also [https://web.archive.org/web/20240131221539/https://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/News/evolution.html archived January 31, 2024]</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Intelligent-design backer fires back at critics |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna9741900 |work=[[NBCNews.com]] |location=New York |publisher=[[NBCUniversal]] |agency=[[NBCNews.com|MSNBC News Services]]; [[Associated Press]]; [[Reuters]] |date=October 18, 2005 |access-date=January 21, 2014}}</ref>

==Early life and education==
Behe was born in [[Altoona, Pennsylvania]], and grew up in [[Harrisburg, Pennsylvania]], where he graduated from [[Bishop McDevitt High School (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)|Bishop McDevitt High School]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.godspy.com/issues/Scientific-Orthodoxies-by-Michael-Behe.cfm |title=Scientific Orthodoxies |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |date=January 25, 2006 |work=[[Godspy]] |publisher=Transmodern Media LLC |location=Pelham Manor, NY |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20061101120821/http://www.godspy.com/issues/Scientific-Orthodoxies-by-Michael-Behe.cfm <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = November 1, 2006 |access-date=January 30, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nndb.com/people/637/000058463/ |title=Michael Behe |website=[[NNDB|Notable Names Database]] |publisher=Soylent Communications |location=Mountain View, CA |access-date=January 15, 2007}}</ref> He graduated from [[Drexel University]] in [[Philadelphia]] in 1974 with a [[Bachelor of Science|B.S.]] in chemistry. He received his [[Doctor of Philosophy|Ph.D.]] in [[biochemistry]] at the [[University of Pennsylvania]] in 1978 for his [[Thesis|dissertation]] research on [[sickle-cell disease]]. 

From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on [[DNA]] structure at the [[National Institutes of Health]]. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at [[Queens College, City University of New York|Queens College]] in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985, he moved to [[Lehigh University]] in [[Bethlehem, Pennsylvania]], where he is currently a professor of biochemistry. From 2005 to 2024, Lehigh University's department of biological sciences exhibited a position statement on its website stating that its faculty reject Behe's views on [[evolution]]:

{{blockquote|The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.<ref name="Lehigh_position" />}}

As of 2024, his faculty webpage states: "My arguments about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are my own, and are not endorsed either by Lehigh University in general or by the Department of Biological Sciences in particular."<ref name="Lehigh University">{{cite web | title=Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, Faculty; Michael Behe, Ph.D. | website=Lehigh University | url=https://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/Faculty/Behe.html | access-date=January 31, 2024}}</ref>

==Career==
{{Further|Irreducible complexity|Intelligent design}}
Behe says he once fully accepted the [[scientific theory]] of evolution, but that after reading ''[[Evolution: A Theory in Crisis]]'' (1985), by [[Michael Denton]], he came to question evolution.<ref>[[#Behe 2002b|Behe 2002b]]</ref> Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that some biological systems were "[[irreducible complexity|irreducibly complex]]". He thought that these systems could not, even in principle, have evolved by [[natural selection]]. He believed that the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures was that they were [[creation myth|created]] by an "[[intelligent designer]]".   Irreducible complexity has been rejected by the [[scientific community]].<ref name="dover_behe_ruling">"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'']]</ref>

The 1987 ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'' [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] decision barred the required teaching of [[creation science]] from [[State school#United States|public schools]] but allowed [[Evolution as fact and theory|evolutionary theory]] on the grounds of scientific validity. After the decision, a later draft of the textbook ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'' (1989) systematically replaced each and every cognate of the word "[[creationism|creation]]" with the phrase "intelligent design" or similar ID terms.<ref name="p32">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]</ref> The books of lawyer [[Phillip E. Johnson]] on [[Theistic science|theistic realism]] dealt directly with criticism of evolutionary theory and its purported biased "[[Materialism|materialist]]" science, and aimed to legitimize the teaching of creationism in schools. In March 1992, a conference at [[Southern Methodist University]] brought Behe together with other leading figures into what Johnson later called the "[[wedge strategy]]." In 1993, the "Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars" met at [[Pajaro Dunes, California]], and Behe presented for the first time his idea of irreducibly complex molecular machinery. Following a summer 1995 conference, "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture," the group obtained funding through the [[Discovery Institute]]. 

For the 1993 edition of ''Pandas'', Behe wrote a chapter on [[Coagulation|blood clotting]], presenting arguments which he later presented in very similar terms in a chapter in his 1996 book ''[[Darwin's Black Box]]''. Behe later agreed that they were essentially the same when he defended intelligent design at the Dover trial.<ref name="Matzke Jan09">{{cite web |url=http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/god-of-the-gapsin-your-own-knowledge-luskin-behe-blood-clotting.html |title=God of the Gaps…in your own knowledge. Luskin, Behe, & blood-clotting |last=Matzke |first=Nick |author-link=Nick Matzke |date=January 4, 2009 |website=[[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |type=Blog |access-date=January 5, 2009}}</ref><ref name="KvDd11">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11am.html |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 11 (October 18), AM Session, Part 1 |website=[[TalkOrigins Archive]] |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=July 28, 2009}}</ref>

In 1996, Behe became a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, later renamed the [[Center for Science and Culture]], an organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design.<ref>[[#Forrest 2001|Forrest 2001]]</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_DoverExptRpt.pdf |title=Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District – Expert Report |last=Pennock |first=Robert T. |author-link=Robert T. Pennock |date=March 31, 2005 |page=25 |access-date=December 19, 2007 |quote=Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools. ([[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], [[American Family Radio]], January 10, 2003, broadcast)}}</ref>

===''Darwin's Black Box''===
{{Main|Darwin's Black Box}}
In 1996, Behe published his ideas on irreducible complexity in his book ''[[Darwin's Black Box]]''. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution.<ref name="behe.shtml">{{cite web |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml |title=Behe's Empty Box |date=November 28, 2001 |editor-last=Catalano |editor-first=John |website=The World of Richard Dawkins |publisher=[[Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science|The Simonyi Professorship]] |location=Oxford, UK |type=Reviews and criticisms |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070404182747/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date=April 4, 2007 |access-date=May 3, 2007}}</ref>

As to the identity of the intelligent designer, Behe responds that if, deep in the woods, one were to come across a group of flowers that clearly spelled out the name "LEHIGH", one would have no doubt that the pattern was the result of intelligent design. Determining who the designer was, however, would not be nearly as easy. 

In 1997, [[Russell Doolittle]], on whose work Behe based much of the blood-clotting discussion in ''Darwin's Black Box,'' wrote a rebuttal to the statements about irreducible complexity of certain systems. In particular, Doolittle mentioned the issue of the blood clotting in his article, "A Delicate Balance."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Doolittle |first=Russell F. |author-link=Russell Doolittle |date=February–March 1997 |title=A Delicate Balance |url=http://new.bostonreview.net/BR22.1/doolittle.html |journal=[[Boston Review]] |issn=0734-2306 |access-date=January 30, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140203003611/http://new.bostonreview.net/BR22.1/doolittle.html |archive-date=February 3, 2014  }}</ref> Later on, in 2003, Doolittle's lab published a paper in the [[Peer review|peer-reviewed]] journal ''[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America|Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]]'' which demonstrates that the [[Tetraodontidae|pufferfish]] lacks at least three out of 26 blood clotting factors, yet still has a workable blood clotting system. According to Doolittle, this defeats a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is irreducibly complex.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Yong |last2=Doolittle |first2=Russell F. |date=June 24, 2003 |title=The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes |journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America|Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]] |volume=100 |issue=13 |pages=7527–7532 |bibcode=2003PNAS..100.7527J |doi=10.1073/pnas.0932632100 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=164620 |pmid=12808152 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

In reviewing a book by [[Robert T. Pennock]], Behe took issue with the "intelligent design" group being associated with "creationism," saying readers would typically take that to mean [[biblical literalism]] and [[young Earth creationism]] (YEC). In 2001 Pennock responded that he had been careful to represent their views correctly, and that while several leaders of the intelligent design movement were young Earth creationists, others including Behe were "[[Old Earth creationism|old-earthers]]" and "creationists in the core sense of the term, namely, that they reject the scientific, evolutionary account of the origin of species and want to replace it with a form of special creation."<ref name="Pennock2001">{{cite journal |last=Pennock |first=Robert T. |author-link=Robert T. Pennock |date=May–August 2001 |title=Whose God? What Science?: Reply to Michael Behe |url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/pennock_behe.html |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |volume=21 |issue=3–4 |pages=16–19 |issn=2158-818X |access-date=September 27, 2008}}</ref>

===Behe and Snoke article===
In 2004, Behe published a paper with [[David Snoke]], in the [[scientific journal]] ''[[Protein Science]]'' that uses a simple [[mathematical model]] to simulate the rate of evolution of proteins by point mutation,<ref name="Behe&Snoke">[[#Behe & Snoke 2004|Behe & Snoke 2004]]</ref> which he states supports irreducible complexity, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, the paper does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, <!-- New Scientist Oct 29 !--> at the behest of the reviewers. Nevertheless, the Discovery Institute lists it as one of the "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 |title=Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=February 1, 2012 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle, WA |access-date=January 30, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070804092839/http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 |archive-date=August 4, 2007 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

[[Michael Lynch (geneticist)|Michael Lynch]] authored a response,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Lynch |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Lynch (geneticist) |date=September 2005 |title=Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins |journal=Protein Science |volume=14 |issue=9 | pages=2217–2225 |doi=10.1110/ps.041171805 |issn=0961-8368 |pmc=2253472 |pmid=16131652 |ref=Lynch 2005}}</ref> to which Behe and Snoke responded.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Behe |first1=Michael J. |last2=Snoke |first2=David W. |date=September 2005 |title=A response to Michael Lynch | journal=Protein Science |volume=14 |issue=9 |doi=10.1110/ps.051674105 |issn=0961-8368 |pmc=2253464 |pages=2226–2227 }}</ref> ''Protein Science'' discussed the papers in an editorial.<ref name="Hermodson">{{cite journal |last=Hermodson |first=Mark |date=September 2005 |title=Editorial and position papers |journal=Protein Science |volume=14 |issue=9 |pages=2215–2216 |doi=10.1110/ps.051654305 |issn=0961-8368 |ref=Hermodson 2005|pmc=2253483 }}</ref>

Numerous scientists have [[debunker|debunked]] the work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe and Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and [[genetic redundancy]]. When the issue raised by Behe and Snoke is tested in the modern framework of evolutionary biology, numerous simple pathways to complexity have been shown. In their response, Behe and Snoke assumed that intermediate mutations are always damaging, where modern science allows for neutral or positive mutations.<ref>See for example:
*[[#Hermodson 2005|Hermodson 2005]]
*[[#Lynch 2005|Lynch 2005]]
*{{cite journal |last1=Lynch |first1=Michael |last2=Abegg |first2=Adam |date=June 2010 |title=The Rate of Establishment of Complex Adaptations |journal=[[Molecular Biology and Evolution]] |volume=27 |issue=6 |pages=1404–1414 |doi=10.1093/molbev/msq020 |issn=0737-4038 |pmc=3299285 |pmid=20118190 }}
*{{cite journal |last1=Masel |first1=Joanna |author-link=Joanna Masel |date=March 2006 |title=Cryptic Genetic Variation Is Enriched for Potential Adaptations |journal=[[Genetics (journal)|Genetics]] |volume=172 |issue=3 |pages=1985–1991 |doi=10.1534/genetics.105.051649|issn=0016-6731 |pmc=1456269 |pmid=16387877 }}
*{{cite journal |last1=Bershtein |first1=Shimon |last2=Tawfik |first2=Dan S. |year=2008 |title=Ohno's Model Revisited: Measuring the Frequency of Potentially Adaptive Mutations under Various Mutational Drifts |journal=Molecular Biology and Evolution |volume=25 |issue=11 |pages=2311–2318 |doi=10.1093/molbev/msn174 |issn=0737-4038 |pmid=18687656 |doi-access=free }}
*{{cite journal |last1=Durrett |first1=Rick |author-link1=Rick Durrett |last2=Schmidt |first2=Deena |date=November 2008 |title=Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution |journal=Genetics |volume=180 |issue=3 |pages=1501–1509 |issn=0016-6731 |doi=10.1534/genetics.107.082610 |pmc=2581952 |pmid=18791261 }}
*{{cite journal |last1=Farmer |first1=Mark A. |last2=Habura |first2=Andrea |date=January–February 2010 |title=Using Protistan Examples to Dispel the Myths of Intelligent Design |journal=Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology |volume=57 |issue=1 |pages=3–10 |doi=10.1111/j.1550-7408.2009.00460.x |issn=1066-5234 |pmid=20021544 |s2cid=2272580 }}</ref> Some of the critics have also noted that the Discovery Institute continues to claim the paper as 'published evidence for design,' despite its offering no design theory nor attempting to model the design process, and therefore not providing an alternative to random chance.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/10/theory-is-as-th.html |title=Theory is as Theory Does |last1=Musgrave |first1=Ian F. |last2=Reuland |first2=Steve |last3=Cartwright |first3=Reed A. |date=October 11, 2004 |website=The Panda's Thumb |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |type=Blog |access-date=January 30, 2014}}</ref>

Many of Behe's statements have been challenged by biologist [[Kenneth R. Miller]] in his book, ''[[Finding Darwin's God]]'' (1999). Behe has subsequently disputed Miller's points in an online essay.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/441 |title='A True Acid Test': Response to Ken Miller |last=Behe |first=Michael |date=July 31, 2000 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle, WA |access-date=January 30, 2014}}</ref>

===''The Edge of Evolution''===
{{Main|The Edge of Evolution}}
In 2007, Behe's book ''[[The Edge of Evolution]]'' was published arguing that while evolution can produce changes within species, there is a limit to the ability of evolution to generate diversity, and this limit (the "edge of evolution") is somewhere between [[species]] and [[order (biology)|orders]].

In this book Behe's central assertion is that Darwinian evolution actually exists but plays only a limited role in the development and diversification of life on Earth. To this aim, he examines the genetic changes undergone by the [[malaria]] plasmodium genome and the [[human genome]] in response to each other's biological defenses, and identifies that "the situation resembles [[trench warfare]], not an [[arms race]]", by considering the [[hemoglobin]]-destroying, protein pump-compromising as a "war by attrition". Starting from this example, he takes into account the number of mutations required to "travel" from one genetic state to another, as well as population size for the organism in question. Then, Behe calculates what he calls the "edge of evolution", i.e., the point at which Darwinian evolution would no longer be an efficacious agent of creative biological change, arguing that purposeful design plays a major role in the development of biological complexity, through the mechanism of producing "non-random mutations", which are then subjected to the sculpting hand of natural selection
.<ref name="Levin" />

The book was reviewed, by prominent scientists in ''[[The New York Times]]'',<ref name="Dawkinsreview">{{cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Dawkins |date=July 1, 2007 |title=Inferior Design |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/review/Dawkins-t.html |newspaper=The New York Times |type=Book review |access-date=July 29, 2007}}</ref> ''[[The New Republic]]'',<ref name="NewRepublicJerry">{{cite magazine |last=Coyne |first=Jerry |author-link=Jerry Coyne |date=June 18, 2007 |title=The Great Mutator |url=http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1271 |magazine=[[The New Republic]] |type=Book review |issn=0028-6583 |access-date=January 30, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140201221735/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1271 |archive-date=February 1, 2014  }}</ref> ''[[The Globe and Mail]]'',<ref>{{cite news |last=Ruse |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Ruse |date=June 2, 2007 |title=Design? Maybe. Intelligent? We have our doubts |url=http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6430603.html |newspaper=[[The Globe and Mail]] |type=Book review |location=Toronto, Ontario |publisher=The Globe and Mail Inc. |issn=0319-0714 |access-date=January 30, 2014}}</ref> ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'',<ref name="Caroll">{{cite journal |last=Carroll |first=Sean B. |author-link=Sean B. Carroll |date=June 8, 2007 |title=Evolution: God as Genetic Engineer |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |type=Book review |volume=316 |issue=5830 |pages=1427–1428 |doi=10.1126/science.1145104 |issn=0036-8075 |doi-access=free }}</ref> and ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]''<ref name="Naturereview">{{cite journal |last=Miller |first=Kenneth R. |author-link=Kenneth R. Miller |date=June 28, 2007 |title=Falling over the edge |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |type=Book review |volume=447 |issue=7148 |pages=1055–1056 |doi=10.1038/4471055a |bibcode=2007Natur.447.1055M |doi-access=free }}</ref> who were highly critical of the work noting that Behe appears to accept almost all of evolutionary theory, barring random mutation, which is replaced with guided mutation at the hand of an unnamed designer.<ref name="Levin">{{cite journal |last=Levin |first=David E. |date=January–April 2007 |title=Review: The Edge of Evolution |url=http://ncse.com/rncse/27/1-2/review-edge-evolution |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |type=Book review |volume=27 |issue=1–2 |pages=38–40 |issn=2158-818X |access-date=January 30, 2014}}</ref>  The book earned Behe the [[Pigasus Award]] for the year 2007.

=== ''Darwin Devolves'' ===
Behe also promotes [[intelligent design]] in his 2019 book, ''Darwin Devolves''<ref>{{Cite book|title=Darwin devolves : the new science about DNA that challenges evolution|last=Behe, Michael J., 1952-|isbn=9780062842619|edition= First|location=New York, NY|oclc=1049576124|date = February 26, 2019}}</ref> whose central premise is that the combination of random [[mutation]] and [[natural selection]], apart from being incapable of generating novelty, is mainly a degradative force. Like his previous books, ''Darwin Devolves'' received negative reviews from the scientific community, including a scathing review in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' by [[Nathan H. Lents]], [[Richard Lenski]], and [[S. Joshua Swamidass]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Lents|first1=Nathan H.|last2=Swamidass|first2=S. Joshua|last3=Lenski|first3=Richard E.|date=February 8, 2019|title=The end of evolution?|journal=Science|volume=363|issue=6427|pages=590|doi=10.1126/science.aaw4056|bibcode=2019Sci...363..590L|s2cid=59621727|issn=0036-8075}}</ref> a harsh critique by [[Jerry Coyne]] in ''[[The Washington Post]]'',<ref>{{cite news |last1=Coyne |first1=Jerry A. |title=Intelligent design gets even dumber |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/intelligent-design-gets-even-dumber/2019/03/08/7a8e72dc-289e-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=December 17, 2020 |date=March 9, 2019}}</ref> and a scholarly rebuttal in ''[[Evolution (journal)|Evolution]]'' from Gregory Lang and Amber Rice, Behe's colleagues at [[Lehigh University]].<ref name="LangRice">{{Cite journal|last1=Lang|first1=Gregory I.|last2=Rice|first2=Amber M.|date=April 2019|title=Evolution unscathed: Darwin Devolves argues on weak reasoning that unguided evolution is a destructive force, incapable of innovation|journal=Evolution|volume=73|issue=4|pages=862–868|doi=10.1111/evo.13710|issn=0014-3820|doi-access=free}}</ref> Lents said of ''Darwin Devolves'' and ''The Edge of Evolution'': "his [ ] two books totally missed their marks and were easily dismissed by the scientific community."<ref name="Skeptical Inquirer">{{cite web|last1=Palmer|first1=Rob|author-link=|date=May 3, 2021|title=Nathan H. Lents on Our Not So Intelligent Design|url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/nathan-h-lents-on-our-not-so-intelligent-design/#rob-palmer|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210503182528/https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/nathan-h-lents-on-our-not-so-intelligent-design/#rob-palmer|archive-date=May 3, 2021|access-date=May 3, 2021|website=Skeptical Inquirer}}</ref>

Lang and Rice's assessment noted that while Behe rightfully acknowledges that organisms have common ancestry, it is posited that a designer is required for more distant relationships like at the family level, and that the presentation of degradative processes is exaggerated with evidence of beneficial adaptations dodged.  The article also criticized the use of false analogies and neglecting evidence of new genetic raw material production for evolution ("Behe is correct that the loss of genetic information is an important mechanism. However, the opposing processes of gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, and introgression balance out gene loss, providing a source of new genetic material").  They then concluded with examples of adaptation that contradict the book's conclusions and expound on the flaws of Irreducible Complexity, adding that "why evolution by natural selection is difficult for so many to accept is beyond the scope of this review; however, it is not for a lack of evidence."<ref name="LangRice" />

===Publications===
Behe has written for the ''[[Boston Review]]'', ''[[The American Spectator]]'', and ''[[The New York Times]].''

==Court cases==
=== Dover testimony ===
{{main|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District}}
In ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]],'' the first direct challenge brought in [[Federal judiciary of the United States|United States federal courts]] to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's [[cross-examination]], where his testimony would prove devastating to the defense. Behe was forced to concede 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 name="Behe testimony">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=January 30, 2014}}</ref> and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that [[astrology]] would also qualify.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Biever |first=Celeste |date=October 19, 2005 |title=Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178 |journal=[[New Scientist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Reed Business Information]] |access-date=March 29, 2011}}
*[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 68 of 139]]</ref> Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billion years."<ref name="Behe testimony" /><ref name="p88">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 88 of 139]]</ref><ref name="Behe testimony2">{{Cite web|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html|title=Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, AM: Michael Behe (continued)|website=www.talkorigins.org}}</ref>

Many of Behe's critics have pointed to these exchanges as examples they believe further undermine Behe's statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. [[John E. Jones III]], the judge in the case, would ultimately rule that intelligent design is not scientific in his 139-page decision, citing Behe's testimony extensively as the basis for his findings:
*"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the [[existence of God]]."<ref name="p28">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 28 of 139]]</ref>
*"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."<ref name="p28" />
*"First, defense expert Professor [[Steve Fuller (sociologist)|Fuller]] agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of [[supernatural]] forces."<ref name="p68">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 68 of 139]]</ref>
*"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the [[National Academy of Sciences|NAS]] and admit that ID is at best '[[fringe science]]' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."<ref name="p70">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 70 of 139]]</ref>
*"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."<ref name="p79">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 79 of 139]]</ref>
*"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe's argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. [[Kevin Padian|Padian]] aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not [[evidence of absence]].'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."<ref name="p71">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 71 of 139]]</ref>
*"Professor Behe's concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."<ref name="p74">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 74 of 139]]</ref>
*"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting [[Biochemical cascade|cascade]]; and (3) the [[immune system]]. Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."<ref name="p76">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 76 of 139]]</ref>
*"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."<ref name="p78">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 78 of 139]]</ref>
*"With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."<ref name="p81">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 81 of 139]]</ref>

Jones would later say that Eric Rothschild's cross examination of Behe was "as good a cross-examination of an expert witness as I have ever seen. It was textbook."<ref name="Rothschild">{{cite web |url=http://www.pepperlaw.com/LegalStaff_Preview.aspx?LegalStaffKey=148 |title=Eric Rothschild |website=Law Firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP |publisher=Pepper Hamilton LLP |access-date=December 2, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120213155626/http://www.pepperlaw.com/LegalStaff_Preview.aspx?LegalStaffKey=148 |archive-date=February 13, 2012  }}</ref><ref name="PennLawyer">{{cite web |url=https://www.pepperlaw.com/uploads/files/doverid_palawyer_julaug06.pdf |title=One for the History Books |last=Granite |first=Lisa L. |date=July 2006 |website=Pepper Hamilton |publisher= Pennsylvania Bar Association|location=PA }}</ref>

===''ACSI v. Roman Stearns''===
{{main|Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns}}
{{Wikisource|Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns}}
Behe received $20,000 for testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in ''Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns.''<ref name="sciblog2007">{{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/09/05/behe-and-the-california-creati/ |title=Behe and the California Creationism Case |last=Dunford |first=Mike |date=September 5, 2007 |website=The Questionable Authority |publisher=ScienceBlogs LLC |type=Blog |access-date=July 25, 2008}}</ref> The case was filed by [[Association of Christian Schools International]], which argued that the [[University of California]] was being discriminatory by not recognizing science classes that use [[Creationism|creationist]] books.<ref name="sciblog2007" /> The 2005 filing claimed that University of California's rejection of several of their courses was illegal "[[viewpoint discrimination]] and content regulation prohibited by the Free Speech Clause."<ref name="ASCIvRoman">{{cite web|url=http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/ruling0808.pdf |title=Order Granting Defendants' 'Motion for Summary Judgment on As-Applied Claims' |date=August 8, 2008 |access-date=January 30, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080821201728/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/ruling0808.pdf |archive-date=August 21, 2008 }} [[United States District Court for the Central District of California]]: ''[[Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns]]'', Document No. CV 05-06242 SJO (MANx); Docket No. 172.</ref> In 2007, Behe's expert witness report claimed that the Christian textbooks, including William S. Pinkston, Jr.'s ''[[Biology for Christian Schools]]'' (1980; 2nd ed. 1994), are excellent works for high school students. He defended that view in a deposition.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007-04-02_Behe_expert_report.pdf |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |title=Expert Witness Report of Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. ''(Biology and Physics)'' |date=April 2, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080627021407/http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007-04-02_Behe_expert_report.pdf |archive-date=June 27, 2008 |access-date=January 30, 2014}} ''Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns''.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007-05-30_Behe_depo_transcript.pdf |last=Behe |first=Michael |title=Deposition of Michael J. Behe |date=May 30, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080627021416/http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007-05-30_Behe_depo_transcript.pdf |archive-date=June 27, 2008 |access-date=January 30, 2014}} ''Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns''.</ref>

In August 2008, Judge [[S. James Otero]] rejected Behe's claims, saying that Behe "submitted a declaration concluding that the BJU [[BJU Press|[Bob Jones University Press]]] text mentions standard scientific content. ... However, Professor Behe 'did not consider how much detail or depth' the texts gave to this standard content."<ref name="ASCIvRoman" /> Otero ruled in favor of the University of California's decision to reject courses using these books.<ref name="ASCIvRoman" /><ref>{{cite news |last=Gupta |first=Rani |date=August 8, 2008 |title=MURRIETA: Judge throws out religious discrimination suit |url=http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/08/08/news/californian/murrieta/za3f1fe48ff6b8872882574a0000ff96d.txt |newspaper=[[North County Times|The Californian]] |location=Temecula, CA |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080815065757/http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/08/08/news/californian/murrieta/za3f1fe48ff6b8872882574a0000ff96d.txt |archive-date=August 15, 2008 |access-date=January 30, 2014}}</ref>

==Personal life==
Behe is a [[Catholic]].<ref name="Utter2009">{{cite book |last=Utter |first=Glenn H. |title=Culture Wars in America |date=November 12, 2009 |publisher=[[ABC-CLIO]] |isbn=9780313350399 |page=263 |language=en}}</ref> He is married to Celeste Behe and they have nine children who are [[homeschooled]].<ref name="HendeyReinhard2016">{{cite book |last1=Hendey |first1=Lisa M. |title=The Catholic Mom's Prayer Companion |last2=Reinhard |first2=Sarah A. |date=August 29, 2016 |publisher=Ave Maria Press |isbn=9781594716621 |page=8 |language=en}}</ref>

==Publications==
{{Refbegin|30em}}

===Books===
*{{cite book |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |year=1996 |title=Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution |location=New York |publisher=[[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]] |isbn=978-0-684-82754-4 |lccn=96000695 |oclc=34150540 |ref=Behe 1996b|title-link=Darwin's Black Box }}
*{{cite book |last1=Behe |first1=Michael J. |last2=Dembski |first2=William A. |author-link2=William A. Dembski |last3=Meyer |first3=Stephen C. |author-link3=Stephen C. Meyer |year=2000 |title=Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Papers Presented at a Conference Sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999 |series= Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute |volume=9 |location=San Francisco, CA |publisher=[[Ignatius Press]] |isbn=978-0-89870-809-7 |lccn=00102374 |oclc=45720008 |author-mask=2 |ref=Behe, Dembski & Meyer 2000|title-link=List of works on intelligent design#Supportive non-fiction books }}
*{{cite book |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |year=2003 |chapter=Design in the Details: The Origin of Biomolecular Machines |editor1-last=Campbell |editor1-first=John Angus |editor1-link=John Angus Campbell |editor2-last=Meyer |editor2-first=Stephen C. |title=Darwinism, Design and Public Education |series=Rhetoric and Public Affairs Series |location=East Lansing, MI |publisher=[[Michigan State University Press]] |pages=287–302 |isbn=978-0-87013-670-2 |lccn=2003020507 |oclc=53145654 |author-mask=2 |ref=Behe 2003a|title-link=Darwinism, Design and Public Education }}
*{{cite book |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |year=2003 |chapter=The modern intelligent design hypothesis: breaking rules |editor-last=Manson |editor-first=Neal A. |title=God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science |location=London; New York |publisher=[[Routledge]] |pages=277–291 |isbn=978-0-415-26344-3 |lccn=2002027548 |oclc=50447710 |author-mask=2 |ref=Behe 2003b}}
*{{cite book |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |year=2004 |chapter=Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution |editor1-last=Dembski |editor1-first=William A. |editor2-last=Ruse |editor2-first=Michael |editor2-link=Michael Ruse |title=Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA |location=New York |publisher=Cambridge University Press |pages=352–370 |isbn=978-0-521-82949-6 |lccn=2004047363 |oclc=54826160 |author-mask=2 |ref=Behe 2004|title-link=List of works on intelligent design#Neutral non-fiction anthologies }} "Papers from a conference, entitled Design and its Critics, held at Concordia University, Mequon, Wis., June 22–24, 2000."
*{{cite book |last1=Behe |first1=Michael J. |last2=Singh |first2=Thoudam Damodara |author-link2=Bhaktisvarupa Damodar Swami |year=2005 |title=God, Intelligent Design & Fine-Tuning: A Discussion Between Michael J. Behe and T.D. Singh |location=Kolkata, West Bengal |publisher=Bhaktivedanta Institute |isbn=978-81-89635-01-5 |lccn=2006554901 |oclc=70631564 |author-mask=2 |ref=Behe & Singh 2005}}
*{{cite book |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |year=2007 |title=The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism |location=New York |publisher=Free Press |isbn=978-0-7432-9620-5 |lccn=2007298379 |oclc=136958644 |author-mask=2 |ref=Behe 2007|title-link=The Edge of Evolution }}
*{{cite book |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |year=2013 |chapter=Getting There First: An Evolutionary Rate Advantage for Adaptive Loss-of-Function Mutations |editor1-last=Marks II |editor1-first=Robert J. |editor1-link=Robert J. Marks II |editor2-last=Behe |editor2-first=Michael J. |editor3-last=Dembski |editor3-first=William A. |editor4-last=Gordon |editor4-first=Bruce L. |editor4-link=Bruce L. Gordon |editor5-last=Sanford |editor5-first=John C. |editor5-link=John C. Sanford |title=Biological Information--New Perspectives: Proceedings of a Symposium Held May 31, 2011 Through June 3, 2011 at Cornell University |location=Hackensack, NJ |publisher=[[World Scientific]] Publishing Co. |pages=450–473 |isbn=978-981-4508-71-1 |lccn=2013016707 |oclc=858441131 |author-mask=2 |ref=Behe 2013}}
*{{cite book |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |year=2019 |title=Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution |location=San Francisco |publisher=HarperOne |isbn=978-0062842619 |lccn=2018034062 |oclc=1049576124 |author-mask=2 |ref=Behe 2019 }}

===Journal articles===
;DNA structure
*{{cite journal |last1=Behe |first1=Michael J. |last2=Felsenfeld |first2=Gary |last3=Szu |first3=Shousun Chen |last4=Charney |first4=Elliot |date=February 1985 |title=Temperature-dependent conformational transitions in poly(dG-dC) and poly(dG-m<sup>5</sup>dC) |journal=[[Biopolymers (journal)|Biopolymers]] |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=289–300 |doi=10.1002/bip.360240202 |issn=0006-3525 |pmid=3978220|s2cid=46173376 }}
*{{cite journal |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |author-mask=2 |date=March 1986 |title=Vacuum UV CD of the low-salt Z-forms of poly(rG-dC).poly(rG-dC), and poly(dG-m<sup>5</sup>dC).poly(dG-m<sup>5</sup>dC) |journal=Biopolymers |volume=25 |issue=3 |pages=519–523 |doi=10.1002/bip.360250310 |issn=0006-3525 |pmid=3754471|s2cid=44340223 }}
*{{cite journal |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |author-mask=2 |date=December 1987 |title=The DNA sequence of the human β-globin region is strongly biased in favor of long strings of contiguous purine or pyrimidine residues |journal=[[Biochemistry (journal)|Biochemistry]] |volume=26 |issue=24 |pages=7870–7875 |doi=10.1021/bi00398a050 |issn=0006-2960 |pmid=3427110}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Behe |first1=Michael J. |last2=Beasty |first2=Anne M. |author-mask=2 |year=1991 |title=Co-polymer tracts in eukaryotic, prokaryotic, and organellar DNA |journal=[[Mitochondrial DNA (journal)|DNA Sequence]] |volume=1 |issue=5 |pages=291–302 |doi=10.3109/10425179109020785 |issn=1940-1736 |oclc=474190174 |pmid=1799681}}
*{{cite journal |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |author-mask=2 |date=February 25, 1995 |title=An overabundance of long oligopurine tracts occurs in the genome of simple and complex eukaryotes |journal=[[Nucleic Acids Research]] |volume=23 |issue=4 |pages=689–695 |doi=10.1093/nar/23.4.689 |issn=0305-1048 |pmc=306739 |pmid=7899090}}
*{{cite journal |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |author-mask=2 |year=1998 |title=Tracts of adenosine and cytidine residues in the genomes of prokaryotes and eukaryotes |journal=DNA Sequence |volume=8 |issue=6 |pages=375–383 |doi=10.3109/10425179809020898 |issn=1940-1736 |pmid=10728822}}
;Protein structure
*{{cite journal |last1=Behe |first1=Michael J. |last2=Englander |first2=S. Walter |date=July 1978 |title=Sickle hemoglobin gelation. Reaction order and critical nucleus size |journal=[[Biophysical Journal]] |volume=23 |issue=1 |pages=129–145 |bibcode=1978BpJ....23..129B |doi=10.1016/S0006-3495(78)85438-1 |issn=0006-3495 |pmc=1473549 |pmid=667302}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Behe |first1=Michael J. |last2=Englander |author-mask1=2 |author-mask2=2 |date=September 5, 1979 |title=Mixed gelation theory. Kinetics, equilibrium and gel incorporation in sickle hemoglobin mixtures |journal=[[Journal of Molecular Biology]] |volume=133 |issue=1 |pages=137–160 |doi=10.1016/0022-2836(79)90254-7 |issn=0022-2836 |pmid=93643}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Behe |first1=Michael J. |last2=Englander |author-mask1=2 |author-mask2=2 |date=September 18, 1979 |title=Quantitative assessment of the noncovalent inhibition of sickle hemoglobin gelation by phenyl derivatives and other known agents |journal=Biochemistry |volume=18 |issue=19 |pages=4196–4201 |doi=10.1021/bi00586a025 |issn=0006-2960 |pmid=486417}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Behe |first1=Michael J. |last2=Lattman |first2=Eaton E. |last3=Rose |first3=George D. |author-mask=2 |date=May 15, 1991 |title=The protein-folding problem: the native fold determines packing, but does packing determine the native fold? |journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America]] |volume=88 |issue=10 |pages=4195–4199 |bibcode = 1991PNAS...88.4195B |doi=10.1073/pnas.88.10.4195 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=51625 |pmid=2034665|doi-access=free }}
;Evolution
*{{cite journal |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |date=October 1990 |title=Histone deletion mutants challenge the molecular clock hypothesis |journal=[[Trends (journals)|Trends in Biochemical Sciences]] |volume=15 |issue=10 |pages=374–376 |doi=10.1016/0968-0004(90)90231-Y |issn=0968-0004 |pmid=2251727}}
*{{cite journal |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |author-mask=2 |date=March 2000 |title=Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin |journal=[[Philosophy of Science (journal)|Philosophy of Science]] |pages=155–162 |volume=67 |issue=1 |doi=10.1086/392766 |issn=0031-8248 |jstor=188618 |citeseerx=10.1.1.643.6193 |s2cid=53975381 }}
*{{cite journal |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |author-mask=2 |date=November 2001 |title=Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of ''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'' |url=http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/Behe_reply_to_my_critics.pdf |journal=[[Biology and Philosophy]] |volume=16 |issue=5 |pages=685–709 |doi=10.1023/A:1012268700496 |s2cid=34945871 |issn=0169-3867 |access-date=January 30, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131205095509/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/Behe_reply_to_my_critics.pdf |archive-date=December 5, 2013  }}
*{{cite journal |last1=Behe |first1=Michael J. |last2=Snoke |first2=David W. |author-link2=David Snoke |author-mask=2 |date=October 2004 |title=Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues |journal=Protein Science |volume=13 |issue=10 |pages=2651–2664 |doi=10.1110/ps.04802904 |issn=0961-8368 |pmc=2286568 |pmid=15340163 |ref=Behe & Snoke 2004}}
*{{cite journal |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |author-mask=2 |date=December 2010 |title=Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and 'the first rule of adaptive evolution' |url=http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf |journal=[[The Quarterly Review of Biology]] |volume=85 |issue=4 |pages=419–445 |doi=10.1086/656902 |pmid=21243963 |issn=0033-5770 |jstor=656902 |s2cid=1070352 |access-date=January 30, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140628034917/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf |archive-date=June 28, 2014  }}

===Media articles===
*{{cite news |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |date=October 29, 1996 |title=Darwin Under the Microscope |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |type=Op-ed |page=A25 |access-date=January 30, 2014 |ref=Behe 1996a}}
*{{cite news |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |author-mask=2 |date=August 13, 1999 |title=Teach Evolution—And Ask Hard Questions |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_ksnytb81399.htm |newspaper=The New York Times |type=Op-ed |page=A21 |access-date=January 30, 2014 |ref=Behe 1999}}
*{{cite journal |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |author-mask=2 |date=April 2002 |title=The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity |journal=[[Natural History (magazine)|Natural History]] |volume=111 |issue=3 |page=74 |issn=0028-0712 |ref=Behe 2002a}}
*{{cite news |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |author-mask=2 |date=February 7, 2005 |title=Design for Living |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html?_r=0 |newspaper=The New York Times |type=Op-ed |page=A21 |access-date=January 30, 2014 |ref=Behe 2005}}

===Film and video appearances===
*{{cite AV media |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |year=1997 |title=Irreducible Complexity: The Biochemical Challenge to Darwinian Theory |type=Public lecture |location=Pasadena, CA |publisher=[[Reasons To Believe|Reasons to Believe]] |oclc=827561263}}
*{{cite AV media |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |author-mask=2 |year=2001 |title=Intelligent Design: From the Big Bang to Irreducible Complexity: An Interview with Dr. Michael Behe |type=Interview |location=Colorado Springs, CO |publisher=[[Access Research Network]] |oclc=49254259}}
*{{cite AV media |last=Behe |first=Michael |author-mask=2 |year=2002 |title=[[Unlocking the Mystery of Life]] |type=Interview |location=Colorado Springs, CO |publisher=[[Focus on the Family]]; Illustra Media |oclc=51949578 |ref=Behe 2002b}}
*{{cite AV media |last=Behe |first=Michael |author-mask=2 |year=2003 |title=Where Does the Evidence Lead?: Exploring the Theory of Intelligent Design |type=Interview |location=Murrieta, CA |publisher=Illustra Media |oclc=60849776}}
*{{cite AV media |last1=Olson |first=Randy (Writer, Director) |author-link1=Randy Olson |last2=Carlisle |first2=Ty (Producer) |last3=Behe |first3=Michael J. (Interviewee) |year=2006 |title=[[Flock of Dodos]]: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus |type = Motion picture |location=New York |publisher=Docurama Films |isbn=978-0-767-09819-9 |oclc=162139273 |lccn=2011604915}}
{{Refend}}

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
{{Refbegin}}
*{{cite book |last=Coulter |first=Ann H. |author-link=Ann Coulter |year=2007 |orig-year=Originally published 2006; New York: [[Crown Publishing Group|Crown Forum]] |title=Godless: The Church of Liberalism |edition= 1st paperback |location=New York |publisher=[[Three Rivers Press]] |isbn=978-1-4000-5421-3 |lccn=2007280683 |oclc=148652646 |ref=Coulter 2007|title-link=Godless: The Church of Liberalism }}
*{{cite book |last=Forrest |first=Barbara |author-link=Barbara Forrest |year=2001 |chapter=The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream |chapter-url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Wedge.cfm#I |title=Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives |editor-last=Pennock |editor-first=Robert T |editor-link=Robert T. Pennock |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |isbn=978-0-262-66124-9 |lccn=2001031276 |oclc=46729201 |ref=Forrest 2001 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/intelligentdesig00robe }}
{{Refend}}

== External links ==
{{wikiquote}}
{{Commons category|Michael Behe}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20060906165307/http://www.lehigh.edu/%7Einbios/faculty/behe.html Michael Behe Biography] from [[Lehigh University]]
* [http://www.discovery.org/p/31 Michael Behe Biography] from the [[Discovery Institute]]
* [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html Michael Behe Biography] from the [[Access Research Network]]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on intelligent design] from the [[TalkOrigins Archive]]
* {{IMDb name|id=1744988|name=Michael Behe}}
* {{Facebook}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Behe, Michael}}
[[Category:1952 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:American activists]]
[[Category:American biochemists]]
[[Category:Catholics from Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors]]
[[Category:Drexel University alumni]]
[[Category:Fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design]]
[[Category:Intelligent design advocates]]
[[Category:Lehigh University faculty]]
[[Category:People from Altoona, Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:Queens College, City University of New York faculty]]
[[Category:University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Sciences alumni]]
[[Category:Writers from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:Writers from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania]]