This easy-to-read book does a top notch job of explaining one of the most vexing problems in biology: the origin of the complexity that permeates all of life.

---

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #243551 in Books
• Published on: 1998-08-03
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 307 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
Michael J. Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, presents here a scientific argument for the existence of God. Examining the evolutionary theory of the origins of life, he can go part of the way with Darwin--he accepts the idea that species have been differentiated by the mechanism of natural selection from a common ancestor. But he thinks that the essential randomness of this process can explain evolutionary development only at the macro level, not at the micro level of his expertise. Within the biochemistry of living cells, he argues, life is "irreducibly complex". This is the last black box to be opened, the end of the road for science. Faced with complexity at this level, Behe suggests that it can only be the product of "intelligent design".

Synopsis
This text argues that the complex chemical machines found within human cells show that they must have been designed either by God or by some higher intelligence. The author discusses the wonders of vision, bloodclotting, cellular transport and disease fighting.

---

Customer Reviews

Open the box
The basic argument is that evolution by a gradual series of random mutations cannot account for the development of highly complex ,resolved and irreducible bio-chemical/biological structures.
The suggestion is that nature shows evidence of intelligent design.
A few points should be noted in the context of some of the previous reviews.
1.The argument is offered as a "challenge" to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The author invites advocates of random mutation / natural selection or others in the scientific community to provide the required detailed explanations.
2. Behe states that highly resolved elements show evidence of design.
It does not do justice to this book to portray this debate as religion v science. There could be an alternative "scientific" explaination. Furthermore throughout Origin of Species Darwin frequently reaffirms his belief in a "creator".
3. The fact is that no-one can yet adequately explain the origin of life on Earth.

If you are a creationist looking for backup you'll love it...
...but if not then it's just plain nonsense. It's reasonably well written, complex in parts but nonsense all the same. Behe just doesn't seem to understand the fundamentals of evolutionary theory - either that or just refuses to accept facts. His arguments have been effectively refuted by many more eminent scientists. He has clearly entered into the debate from a strongly religious standpoint and tried to fit the facts to suit his beliefs. This is clearly at odds with the scientific method which is to examine evidence and THEN form a theory. If new evidence comes to refute the theory then you have the throw it out and make a new one. There are so many holes in Behe's theories to indicate he has not be dilligent or honest enough with himself to carry out this essential practice.

However there is clearly money to be made in preaching to the converted.

I would give it 2 stars because at least he's thought about it and produce a readable work. But then I have to knock it back to 1 star because it is simply not true and therefore misleading.

A real eye opener...
At first after reading this I was annoyed that I spent good money on it. However, on reflection, I'm glad I read this - it has really enlightened me as to just how vacuous the ID argument really is.

In this book Behe attempts to deny that evolution is capable of producing complex structures through his idea of irreducible complexity and seeks to convince the reader that since evolution is incapable of such a feat it must have been designed by some intelligent being.

Behe stumbles almost immediately. Forced to accept the reality of evolution, he attempts to use the concept of microevolution (which he accepts) and macroevolution (which he doesn't) as a premise on which to base the rest of the book. Microevolution he defines (in the loosest possible sense of the word) as "one or a few small jumps" whereas macroevolution is essentially anything requiring "large jumps". The problem here is that his defintions are so subjective as to be meaningless. What's a "jump"? What is "large" or "small" or, for that matter, "a few"? When does "a few" cease to be "a few" and be "large"? Why can't "a few small jumps" undergo further "few small jumps" to become a "large jump"? It's a matter of opinion I guess. This is pretty much the theme for the remainder of the book.

Behe outlines his idea of IC by describing several complex structures such as the eye, cilia and the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting going to great lengths to make sure the reader is aware of just how complex these are. He argues that these are irreducibly complex since by removing certain key components they would no longer function as intended and therefore cannot have been gradually evolved. The real problem is again one of subjectivity. Every one of Behe's examples boils down to - "If you remove a component from this function it ceases to work. I can't think how this could have evolved gradually. Scientists haven't described a minutely detailed blow-by-blow evolutionary pathway for it. Therefore it is irreducibly complex. A mouse trap is irreducibly complex. A mousetrap is designed. Therefore this function was designed. QED.". His argument really is that transparent.

Many of his analogies are misleading and hopelessly anthropocentric. He is obessessed with mousetraps but again, because he fixated on current form and function the analogy doesn't work. In another example he questions who would buy an outboard motor that turned at 1 revolution per hour? This is just an updated version of the old "what use is half an eye" chestnut. Evolution, of course, doesn't have to do something well - just better.

Behe pours scorn on scientists for not describing in detail the evolutionary pathway for each of his IC systems. Then when they attempt to - he derides them for having "fertile imaginations"! He should know. He would rather subscribe to the notion of biochemists from the future travelling through time to seed the young earth with the mechanism for their own (and his) existence, than grant evolution its macro- prefix!

He never attempts to get to grips the question of why, if macroevolutionary structures / processes were designed by some supreme intellect they are so flawed. Problems with regard to the "design" of the eye, to take merely one example, are dismissively brushed aside as irrelevant because we cannot possibly know the machinations of such a mind!

I wouldn't bother going out of your way but I recommend reading this book if you get the chance - it's a real eye opener!