Darwin's Black Box
| Company type | Book |
|---|---|
| Industry | Publishing |
| Founded | 1996 |
| Founder | Michael Behe |
| Products | Non-fiction book on biochemistry and intelligent design |
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (first published in 1996; second edition in 2006) is authored by Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. In this work, Behe introduces the idea of irreducible complexity, contending that certain biochemical mechanisms are best explained by intelligent design rather than through evolutionary processes. Prior to this, in 1993, he presented related arguments concerning blood clotting in Of Pandas and People, although the term "irreducible complexity" was not used then; it was later developed and popularized in Darwin's Black Box. Behe confirmed his authorship of both publications during testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.
The scientific community has largely rejected the book’s claims, branding them as pseudoscientific and pointing out numerous logical inconsistencies, selective quoting, and personal attacks. Critical reviews appeared in Nature and from Richard Dawkins in The New York Times, both dismissing the arguments as thoroughly refuted. Nevertheless, Darwin's Black Box achieved bestseller status and received generally positive commentary from Publishers Weekly, which described it as a "spirited, witty critique of neo-Darwinian thinking" that could engage readers. The conservative publication National Review included it among the century’s top 100 non-fiction books, with endorsement from Discovery Institute affiliate George Gilder.
Summary
The term "black box" in the title refers to a conceptual device whose internal mechanisms are unknown or ignored, allowing analysis to focus solely on its output or function—a method frequently employed in scientific inquiry. Behe points out that during Charles Darwin's era, knowledge of cellular biology and microbiology was limited, a topic he intends to explore further.
He draws attention to historical paradigm shifts that have overturned established scientific theories and proposes that biology—and particularly evolution—may be on the cusp of a comparable transformation prompted by biochemical findings emerging around 1996. Behe concedes that the majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory, often relying more on consensus than direct evidence.
Behe challenges evolutionary explanations that presuppose the existence of certain functions, citing Darwin’s own example where a simple light-sensitive patch supposedly evolved into an eye. Darwin himself admitted he could not explain how such a rudimentary light-sensitive spot originated; Behe argues that many evolutionary narratives suffer from analogous fundamental gaps.
The concept of irreducible complexity is introduced to describe systems composed of multiple interdependent parts where removal of any single element causes loss of function—illustrated by the example of a mousetrap. Behe examines biological structures such as the cilium, bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system, and vesicular transport, asserting that their biochemical intricacy is often underestimated.
In response to alternative explanations like gradual adaptation, where systems evolve new roles from unrelated original functions, Behe argues these scenarios are highly unlikely. He emphasizes the absence of experimental evidence or calculated models supporting such evolutionary pathways within scientific literature. The book concludes by advocating for intelligent design as a plausible explanation for observed irreducible complexity.
Reception
Darwin's Black Box faced significant rejection from the scientific community, which challenged both Behe's foundational assumptions and his reasoning. Kenneth R. Miller described Behe's position as a contemporary adaptation of the design argument applied to biochemical systems, pointing to biochemical data and fossil evidence that demonstrate the evolutionary development of intricate structures. Miller further criticized Behe's hypothesis as unfalsifiable, emphasizing that it disregards substantial proof supporting biochemical evolution. On his blog, PZ Myers dismissed the work as pseudoscience. In a review published in Nature, Jerry Coyne accused Behe of distorting evolutionary evidence, engaging in quote mining, and resorting to ad hominem tactics while superficially acknowledging evolutionary theory.
A critique featured on the pro-evolution platform talk.origins labeled the book as a display of ignorance, highlighting that systems were declared "irreducibly complex" only in instances where Behe failed to imagine simpler mechanisms. This review echoed Miller’s concerns about unfalsifiability and pointed out flawed reasoning due to selective omission of facts. H. Allen Orr dismissed Behe’s claims as fundamentally incorrect, citing documented cases of gradual evolutionary processes producing irreducibly complex systems, including research by Hermann Joseph Muller. Additionally, Behe was faulted for alleging a conspiracy of silence among scientists regarding the limitations of Darwinian theory.
In The New York Times, Richard Dawkins criticized the book for presenting a misleading binary choice that rejects Darwinian evolution despite abundant supporting evidence, relying on a single contested example of irreducible complexity. Dawkins noted that Darwin himself anticipated such critiques and pointed out that Behe’s example involving the bacterial flagellum was effectively countered by Miller during Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Behe has addressed various criticisms in response.
Conversely, the politically conservative publication National Review recognized Darwin's Black Box among its top 100 non-fiction books of the century, with panelists including George Gilder, associated with the Discovery Institute.
Creation
Denis Lamoureux identified Behe's Darwin's Black Box as a key text underpinning fundamentalist and evangelical critiques against evolution. Behe misrepresents Darwin’s stance on the origin of life by portraying it as atheistic, despite Darwin’s positive references to a Creator in On the Origin of Species. Although Behe stops short of explicitly endorsing direct divine action within natural processes, he speculates that the emergence of the first cell might have involved such intervention, aligning with creationist perspectives and echoing Darwin’s notion of life being "originally breathed into a few forms or into one."
Behe’s claim that the origin of the first cell constitutes a "gap" necessitating divine involvement exemplifies the problematic God of the gaps reasoning, which is vulnerable to scientific elucidation. His argument that irreducibly complex structures arise suddenly in "one fell swoop" is unsupported by fossil evidence and is contested by numerous biochemists, including those who hold Christian beliefs.
Peer review dispute
In 2005, while testifying in the Dover case, Behe asserted under oath that his book had undergone a more stringent peer review process than is customary for academic articles. Nevertheless, this statement is at odds with the actual review history of the book. Four out of five reviewers—Michael Atchison, Robert Shapiro, K. John Morrow, and Russell Doolittle—have either publicly refuted or declined to endorse Behe’s claim of thorough peer evaluation.
Michael Atchison
Atchison clarified that he never conducted a formal review of the book but gave his approval after a brief 10-minute telephone summary without reading the manuscript.
Robert Shapiro
Robert Shapiro examined the book and agreed with certain aspects of its origin-of-life research critique but disagreed with its overall conclusions. He characterized it as the most comprehensive presentation of the design argument available yet observed that proper peer review would have necessitated removing or amending its intelligent design assertions.
K. John Morrow
Morrow condemned the book as lacking support and found it deeply objectionable, a stance that influenced the initial publisher’s refusal to publish it.
Russell Doolittle
Russell Doolittle, whose research on blood clotting was extensively cited, stated that the book distorted his simplified lecture explanation and included a flawed creationist improbability calculation by excluding established alternatives. This criticism also played a role in the original publisher’s decision to reject the work.
During the proceedings, Behe testified under oath that no peer-reviewed publications provide detailed experimental or computational support for intelligent design. The verdict in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District determined that intelligent design does not qualify as science but is instead a religious belief.
External links
- Archived publisher’s page for Darwin's Black Box
- Digitized copy and critiques on Google Books
- John McDonald’s examination of a reducibly complex mousetrap
- Archived response from biochemists addressing the "biochemical challenge to evolution"
- Analysis challenging Behe’s "Irreducible Complexity" theory
- View NOVA’s documentary Intelligent Design On Trial