What a shame that this unscientific twaddle is the only type of exposure to Darwinism many people will ever have.

David Hume hit it right on the mark: "The gazing populace receive greedily, without examination, whatever soothes superstition and promotes wonder."

Don't buy the hype. Evolution isn't a theory in crisis. Evolutionary theory is the most successful scientific theory currently available. Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity", which he defines as "a single system composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, where in the removal any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning", is the most recent creationist argument against evolution. Unfortunately for Behe, irreducible complexity is only an argument against his own misconceived caricature of evolution theory, not the rigorous theory utilized by biologists across the globe.

In his book Behe provides the bacterial flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity. He maintains that the removal of any of the many protein subunits that compose the bacterial flagellum will result in its complete loss of function. Shortly after Behe's book was published, scientists discovered a bacterial organelle, the type III secretion apparatus, that was composed of a combination of some, but not all the proteins of the bacterial flagellum. It seems that Behe didn't take into account that systems of interacting parts can change function as parts are added or taken away. If components of the supposedly irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum are taken away, it may lose function as a flagellum, but it functions perfectly well as the type III secretion apparatus.

Behe didn't take into account a fundamental premise of evolutionary theory, that through natural selection new functions are discovered for preexisting structures. As described by François Jacob in 1977, evolution acts as a tinkerer, not an engineer. The mammalian inner ear bones are known to have evolved from jaw bones of mammalian ancestors, for example. As the proteins that compose the bacterial flagellum were slowly cobbled together by evolutionary processes, the intermediate stages need not, and most likely didn't, function as a flagellum.

Behe's "irreducible complexity" is not repairable. Evolutionary theory already provides mechanisms that produce supposedly irreducibly complex systems. Even if an organ was discovered that could be proven to be irreducibly complex, that would only be evidence against natural selection, not evidence in favor of Intelligent Design. Genetic drift is one evolutionary mechanism that allows evolving lineages to explore "adaptive landscapes" and discover new adaptive possibilities that would have been invisible to natural selection alone. Irreducible complexity is a failed negative argument against evolutionary theory, not a positive argument in favor of Intelligent Design.

For those reading this review that are actually interested in how evolutionary processes have produced the diversity of life we see in nature, I recommend Climbing Mount Improbable, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins and Endless Forms Most Beautiful and The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll. These books are easy to read and full of amazing examples of evolution in action and the power of evolutionary theory. Behe's ideas have been expelled from the scientific community, for good reason!
Climbing Mount ImprobableThe Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without DesignThe Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of EvolutionEndless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo DevoThe Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution

I found this book absolutely fascinating. What a wonderful case for intelligent design without the usual "fall-back" to biblical references. It would be hard to deny ID after reading this book. A great read for someone who is honestly seeking answers.

Very well written book. Despite the impression that some reviews give, the book is quite logical in its approach. There are some very in depth descriptions of cellular mechanics and certain biological functions (such as blood clotting). But the author sets these difficult passages apart from the main text, providing a simpler overview, and a more in-depth analysis for science-minded folks who like to know the finer details. Not for causal reading, but certainly an excellent read to stimulate those synapses.

In the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision the Court noted that "Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection."" [and] "Professor Behe specifically explained that "[t]he current definition [of irreducible complexity] puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system," but "[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place." Id. In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work;" however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect."

In other words, the only thing that Irreducible Complexity proved was to be wrong.

Excellent book. Not for the faint of heart and has some very technical reading. As I continue my research of creationism vs. evolution it's incredible how our schools continue to teach the wrong history with the mountains of obvious evidence against evolution and the non-existent evidence supporting evolution. A great read!

Michael Beehee's work has been discredited too many times to count ranging from a lack of participating in the scientific peer review process or in court cases (see Dover, PA.). This book has more bogus science for those who prefer faith over evidence.

Thanks Mike, we all love being mislead...

The book is not without merit, especially as a historical record of a stage in the retreat of religion from the field of scientific investigation. It has to be said that it is not science, in the respect that it serves to promote a pre-existing agenda rather than representing a search for some truth. It also has to be said that it has been superseded, since it presents an argument that a series of structures cannot be reduced to simpler precursors and in many cases the precursors have now been described as they exist in nature. It has further to be said that it presents interesting descriptions of the allegedly irreducible structures and that one ought to read it to understand the place and failure of "intelligent design" in the alleged controversy over evolution in the USA.

To be read critically, in other words, and not as if it were real science. It argues from an assertion of irreducibility which is not true to a conclusion of design which the author started with, and which does not actually qualify as an explanation, so it qualifies neither as science, nor as properly-conducted philosophy, nor even as particularly inspiring theology. It could convince the unwary non-technical reader, however, so have a care.

As you will note by a glance at the distribution of stars, one tends to fall on one side or the other based on one's agreement with the book's premise.

The author spends the first two thirds of the book discussing how Darwinism, etc, is insufficient for explaining evolution at the biochemical level. That's all well and good - the author knows MUCH more than I do about these things, and I have no basis for argument. However, he then jumps to the conclusion that there must be an intelligent designer. So, in essence, his argument seems to be that, if science hits a wall, then it's time to wheel in the Deus ex machina of intelligent design. My first question, then, is, why bother with the first two thirds of the book? There are PLENTY of scientific questions for which we do not have answers, and for which current theories seem to be insufficient. It's easy enough for ANYONE, including my seven-year-old, to posit the need for a designer. At this point, we have left the realm of science, unless we are able to go further and suggest what observations might be made, or experiments performed, that might tell us about the nature of this designer, or the mechanism by which it works. Maybe he's waiting for the sequel?

The second question is, where would we be if scientists made this a general operating principle? The answer, of course, is that, at best, we would be trying to turn lead into gold, or using leeches to treat most of our ailments.

The author would have been better served not to waste his time and ours, and to have concentrated on something more productive. He should have heeded the sage advice of Wittgenstein: "What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence."

I come to Behe's book rather late, but recent personal discussions motivated my reading of this rather well-known book on ID. I was happy to see that Behe added another chapter to the latest edition, to update his views.

I give him a few stars for being quite an excellent popular science writer. His appendix provides an excellent and fascinating look at cellular biology. I think he could go far in writing popular texts on science. But it is his argument I find wanting, and this is mostly what I wish to talk about in this review. I am no trained biologist, but a trained philosopher, so it is not biological details that I will address, but the method of argument (which is something philosophers are rather severely tested in, especially in graduate school). I intend not to berate Behe, but to offer counterarguments.

I don't believe I need at this point to go into the details of Behe's claims. Certain biological processes, in his view, are so complex that gradual evolution cannot explain them--the clotting of blood, for example. I find the method of his argument, however, considerably insufficient.

First, we might note that this type of book could have been written at any time during the development over many centuries of science. Science is a matter of investigating the unexplained (in terms of natural processes). At any point along the road of science one could scan the territory of the yet-to-be-explained and claim design. Design after all was the default position at the beginnings of science. Medieval thinkers would invoke it whenever they could not explain some phenomenon of nature (there was plenty that could not be explained then), and it has been open for invocation ever since. Indeed there was a rather famous invocation far before Behe--William Paley's Natural Theology. Within the pages of that book Paley detailed certain anatomical facts that he regarded as impervious to scientific explanation. One such fact was the structure of the eye--it simply could only be explained by design. Two hundred years later we have a quite plausible explanation of the evolution of the eye. None other than Charles Darwin, by biographical reports, was initially impressed by Paley.

So let's consider Behe. He offers quite lucid descriptions of cellular processes, and declares their "irreducibly complex." Behe is a rather impatient man. It took well over one hundred years to offer a plausible solution to Paley's irreducible complexity argument concerning the eye. But Behe constantly refers to the current literature that lacks any detailed explanation of the biological systems that he cites in evolutionary terms, and declares design. And, yet, Behe enthusiastically admires the decades of research that brought about the discoveries that leads him to the conclusion of intelligent design. If decades of research were required to make an argument, in all fairness we should wait for some decades of research before we evaluate the counterargument. But Behe is not patient enough for evolutionary biologists to do their work. Worse than this, when the latter offer some abstract but reasonable explanations that deserve further study, Behe, by simple fiat, throws them down. It seems that if evolutionary biology cannot come up with the answer "Right Now!" (and in excusite detail) it is irrelevant and ridculous in his view.

There is also a hidden premise in Behe's arguments. It is not one that he articulates, for the clear reason that articulating the premise would raise scepticism of his argument. The premise is simply this--"If something is not explained then it is inexplicable except for design." Behe naturally does not want to offer this premise explicitly, since doing so would bring out the numerous and continous falsifications of science. Again, design has from the Middle Ages been the default view, and science has constantly refuted that view. This makes for a rather powerful inductive argument against Behe's position. In his recent (2006) added chapter, he declares that the burden of proof is against evolutionists. The success of science against design suggests precisely the opposite--IDist's have the burden of proof.

In sum, I learned (or relearned) some interesting facts about cellular biology. But did I get an argument for ID--not in the least.

Very well written. Deals with a very complex subject in a manner both accurate and easy to understand.

I don't think one should have an opinion on biochemical evolution - or on evolution in general - until one has read this incredible book. Okay, if you already reject evolution, I guess you're off the hook; but for everyone else, this is a must-read.

It's not often that I mark up a book I've bought, but I found myself highlighting a number of paragraphs in this book. I learned a lot reading it, and I'm learning more going through some of these reviews. First the book.

While reading Darwin's Black Box, I thrilled at the complexity of the biological machines within machines. Reminded me of the Reader's Digest articles years ago titled, I am Joe's Heart, Liver, Eye, etc. Remember them. They were short essays on the function of human body parts. It's simply amazing how, for example, anyone of our senses work. I get goose bumps, because I'm astonished by the ingenuity of . . blind, impersonal, random, meaningless, chance. Call it nature.

"Cosmos that's all that there is and that's all that there every will be," said the late Carl Sagan. Are you sure? What's dark matter? What's dark energy? What does the second law of thermodynamics say?

When Galileo, "The father of modern physics", asked the Church of Rome to take Augustine's position of not taking every passage of scripture literally, he was imprisoned. It looks like The Church of Darwin are equally unimpressed by the tampering to their scripture, On The Origin of the Species. A book written in the steam boat era. Hence Mr. Behe, is being told to fall in line. I don't understand why.

On page five he writes. "I have no reason to doubt the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common decent {that all organisms share a common ancestor} fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it." He goes on to say he respects the work of his colleagues but that he's just not convinced, Darwin's mechanism, natural selection working on variation, explains molecular life. Sounds scientific enough to me. In the rest of the book he makes a rational, air tight case as to why. I don't see the word God, or Jesus, speckled anywhere in this book.

Carl Sagan also said this, "Science did not eliminate God, just the need for there to be a God." How on earth could it be any other way when the 'proper' definition of science is only natural explanations allowed? It wouldn't matter how unlikely the natural route appears. Where intelligent design is disqualified, Darwin cannot lose. When the fossil record does not provide the evidence that naturalism would like to see, it is the fossil record, not the naturalistic explanation that is judged to be inadequate.

So if you have a Christian worldview, they may say it's not necessarily "untrue." But it's "unscientific." Therefore not allowed in a science class, but maybe in literature or social studies class. This has a powerful affect on our beliefs system. The product of science is seen as fact and anything rival to it as fantasy. To see how loaded this knowledge belief distinction is, try to imagine the reaction to Darwinists if you suggested that their theory be removed from the collage biology curriculum and studied instead in a course devoted to 19th century intellectual history.

Even with the argument shredding discovery of the rate of expansion of the early universe to a delicate balance that cannot differ by more than one part in 10 to the 55 from the actual rate. [a number that would make chance impossible] this is not conceited as proof of God. Only proof that, "She's a tight fit." I'd say.

I can well imagine the frustrations of the parents of Nicole Brown. The 'scientific evidence,' had O.J. Simpson's blood on her porch [anthropic principal] and her blood in his Bronco.[moral law] Stack that with the 9 violent wife battering 9.1.1. calls.[information in DNA] The open gash on his knuckle of the middle finger. [Birth of universe, nothing cannot make everything]. "Put it this way," said Vincent Bogliosi, in his book Outrage devoted to this whole debacle, "O.J. Simpson is as guilty as guilty can get." But just like the above aforementioned quote from Sagan, Johnny Cochrane said something so lame at the time it was laughable, "If the glove does not fit you must acquit." A glove shriveled up by dried blood, and with a little slight of hand by O.J.,the willfully blind jury bought in. They were too chicken to hand down the proper verdict.. . We all have our motives to run.

In my concrete pillar of faith, the re-bar in the middle is unbiased honest science that keeps it from cracking.

The Bible say in Romans chapter one, that God's invisible qualities, eternal power, divine nature are on display, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without an excuse. So if it is so obvious why do I have to hide it? Where I work, if you say the name of Jesus or God, it better be in a derogatory manner, or in anger, or as a curse, or you will find yourself alone at the water cooler. Just like the author of this book.

Michael J. Behe writes a book that implies there is a missing key ingredient in the standard model of the theory of evolution. The faithful jump down his throat in defence of their sacred cow. Shameful, lets let the evidence talk, not our hand picked ideology.

It's not often that I mark up a book I've bought, but I found myself highlighting a number of paragraphs in this book. I learned a lot reading it, and I'm learning more going through some of these reviews. First the book.

While reading Darwin's Black Box, I thrilled at the complexity of the biological machines within machines. Reminded me of the Reader's Digest articles years ago titled, I am Joe's Heart, Liver, Eye, etc. Remember them. They were short essays on the function of human body parts. It's simply amazing how, for example, any one of our senses work. I get goose bumps, because I'm astonished by the ingenuity of IT. . . Blind random meaningless chance. Call it nature.

"Matter that's all that there is and that's all that there every will be," said the late Carl Sagan. Are you sure? What's dark matter? What's dark energy? What does the second law of thermodynamics say? I've looked at this from every angle I can think of, and have over 200 books in my study. To me, consciousness, moral law, and the scientific evidence of the birth of the universe are equal to the arguments in biology of how we got here. Just to name three more subjects.

When Galileo, "The father of modern physics", asked the Church of Rome to take Augustine's position of not taking every passage of scripture literally, he was shot down. It looks like The Church of Darwin are equally disturbed by this recent retooling to their scripture, The Origin of the Species. A book written in the steam boat era. Hence Mr. Behe, is being told to fall in line. I don't understand why.

On page five he writes. "I have no reason to doubt the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common decent {that all organisms share a common ancestor} fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it." He goes on to say he respects the work of his colleagues but that he's just not convinced, Darwin's mechanism, natural selection working on variation, explains molecular life. Sounds scientific to me. In the rest of the book he makes a strong case as to why. I don't see the word God, or Jesus, speckled anywhere in this book.

It doesn't bother me that this ordered, structured, universe has an outside intelligence that caused it's existence. Since I was a small boy I stood in awe of the cosmos and miracle of planet earth. In the year of my 37th trip around the sun{after 4 years of studying the Bible and other books} I put a name to this fascination. People call this worship. I think IT is what I was made for. When you discover IT, the baseless rage against IT, will just be static. Incidentally, that quest I went on was for truth. Turned into a belief in God. Sorry.

I am a molecular biologist, and I can tell you that the level of ignorance on display in this book is absolutely astonishing. Behe manages to completely misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent evolution at every turn, then revels in victory when he counters these straw men. Behe claims to be a molecular biologist. I AM a molecular biologist. Behe knows nothing of evolutionary biology, or of science. This book needs to be re shelved into the Religion section, as that's what this book is: theology. It is as far from science as the Bible itself.

I am a molecular biologist, and I can tell you that the level of ignorance on display in this book is absolutely astonishing. Behe manages to completely misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent evolution at every turn, then revels in victory when he counters these straw men. Behe claims to be a molecular biologist. I AM a molecular biologist. Behe knows nothing of evolutionary biology, or of science. This book needs to be re shelved into the Religion section, as that's what this book is: theology. It is as far from science as the Bible itself.

While I wasn't convinced of his argments, Michael Behe does a credible job of presenting the position of Intelligent Design. He gets bogged down in explaining the science and gets a little condescending in his attempts to draw correlations for the "layman" reader.

In this book Michael Behe claims to present a scientific argument, by his own definition of "scientific".

However, under oath on the witness stand in Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), Behe admitted that by his definition, ASTROLOGY is also "scientific".

So why pay for this book, when you could turn to your newspaper's horoscopes and get something just as "scientific" at a much lower price?

In this book Michael Behe claims to present a scientific argument, by his own definition of "scientific".

However, under oath on the witness stand in Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), Behe admitted that by his definition, ASTROLOGY is also "scientific".

So why pay for this book, when you could turn to your newspaper's horoscopes and get something just as "scientific" at a much lower price?

What I got out of Dr. Behe's book is that evolution is the obvious conclusion in some instances. In other instances, evolution does not seem to be a viable explaination. Now, he seems to jump to the intelligent design conclusion rather quickly. There are so many scientific questions that haven't been answered; humankind can only do so much in the 80 years since the electron microscope was invented. He never goes to the Bible or any religion as a resource, but relies on science journals and logic. I applaud the author's open-mindedness and hope that those who read this book can consider several options.

Michael Behe makes some compelling arguments that Darwinian evolution finds certain things hard to explain - amongst them: the complex function of cilia and flagellum, the biochemistry of the cell and of antibody function, and the clotting of human blood. Either Darwinian theory cannot explain these things, or it has yet to explain them. Behe, however, seems to leap to the conclusion that there is no explanation for them other than intelligent design. While this may very well be possible, he undermines his own argument by too quickly or casually dismissing the compelling arguments others have made. Behe's arguments are interesting, but his style of delivery can come off as unfortunately arrogant, which erodes the basis and confidence one has in his objectivity. Overall, however, Darwin's Black Box remains an interesting and compelling read, and my own judgment is that Darwinian theory is still very useful and compelling, and intelligent design has not been ruled out. Behe's book is a useful, and overall readable introduction to stimulate intellectual discourse on the debate over Darwinian theory and intelligent design.

As a researcher in biochemistry, I can expertly state that this book is, for lack of a more focused term, bunk. The most extraordinary thing I learned reading this book was that such a plainly idiotic and mentally deficient man could receive tenure. His university must clearly regret that decision about as much as Germany regrets the Reich that occured after the second.

While highly intellectual Bebe has put forth the final nail in Darwin's inplausable theory. Well Done! Teach the Difference!

If you aren't scientific, but are a proponent of ID or an antagonist of evolution - then this book will make you feel better. You won't have a scientifically sounder basis for this affirmation, but you'll feel better.

The science and supposed backing behind Behe's arguments are decrepit; so much so that even fellow colleagues at LeHigh U (were Behe sits) release statements like "Finally, it seems to me that the central claim of intelligent design proponents such as my colleague, Michael Behe -- namely, that Darwinian evolution cannot explain the emergence of systems -- is weak, if not wrong." - Steve Goldman, PhD.

That is also my view of Behe's arguments - he pounds on assertions about how genes and proteins evolve, interact, etc, yet completely ignores a huge amount of data that directly contradicts these premises. Modern and more knowledge scientists and authors have discredited many of the claims and questions. Google them if you are interested.

In short, if you want to make yourself feel better about your faiths or your distaste for evolution then read this - but it'll be a false sense of security and confidence built on far stretched and negligent scholarship and half-baked science.

This book turns out to be worse than I expected. It really is a negative force that uses misinformation and misdirection to spread foolishness.

After I purchased biochemist Michael Behe's new book "The Edge of Evolution," I decided it would be wise for me to boney up on his seminal 1996 work "Darwin's Black Box." I already played muck-a-muck with this debate for quite a few months, in a whirling attempt of absorbed concentration in the infamous struggle of "Design v. Darwin" to find out the truth. The debate may be superfluous, and especially downright nasty, and it will continue to intensify in the coming months with a new documentary by lawyer and social commentator Ben Stein in February 2008. Reading Behe is like taking a time out from the unfair play on both sides of the field. He is a better penman than Richard Dawkins, devoid of the man's vile poison, and he treats the reader as a student to be respected, not as a clay figure to be molded into a Darwiniac inquisitor. In fact, Behe is a committed believer in common descent, a position that isn't too friendly a bedfellow of creationists. The book is unique in both its author and its content, as demonstrated by the numerous "critiques" and "debunking" of the arguments proposed on the Amazon boards. Reading the hundreds or so reviews and responses only do so much to strengthen Behe's ideas.

This book is more like a parade. Behe, the ringleader with the marching rod, introduces us to the central argument of the "Black Box." It turns out to be irreducible complexity, which embodies the fabric of many biological systems once believed to be inconsequential, simplistic globules developed by chance mutation and selection. We then witness the march of the band and its many sections: the cell, the bacterial flagellum, blood-clotting, the cilium, etc. Each system, composed of many interdependent parts, will cease functioning if only one of its microscopic parts is missing. The individual parts, of course, can still possibly perform some other function (so goes the most powerful critique against ID! Things have different functions! Eureka!). However, the system itself will be quite useless. Thus appears the grand finale, a prolonged beat of the bass drum, which is that the neo-Darwinian paradigm is an implausible explanation for how these molecular systems appeared, no matter how many billions of years you attempt to postulate for its progress.

Attacking the hypothesis of intelligent design as a "God-of-the-Gaps" argument is one of the most frequently peddled mischaracterizations in all of the debate, promoted by no less than the most rabid of atheistic biologists like Dawkins and Eugenie Scott. The argument goes: We cannot envision a way naturalistic science could develop this system; hence it was made by God. The falsehood in this attack is typical, not to mention simplistic. Behe himself describes ID as the purposeful arrangement of parts in a system. We see this in every biological system: the cell, the flagellum, the cilium, and the blood clotting system. These systems are arranged in a purposeful pattern, structured precisely to, in the case of the cell, to replicate and store information, and in the case of other biological organisms, to sustain itself (unlike non-living materials like, say, rocks). It says nothing about whom or what this designer is. And, of course, it still remains the burden of proof to demonstrate how it evolved. We're talking about the Supreme Law of the Universe (Darwinism), and all that people can come up with are fairy tales about how it MIGHT have happened?

Neo-Darwinism cannot be supported much longer. It doesn't mean that evolution did not occur, or that common descent is a bogus idea. But the chance mutation-selection paradigm is becoming increasingly to difficult to sustain. The hyperactive Stalinist response to events like the Dover case and the actions committed by groups like the NSTA and ASE in America suggests a religious cult going through panic mode. Certainly there is something to what Behe and the rest of the ID movement is saying that just strikes a nerve. Maybe it's just the truth.

Supporters of the classic evolution that is taught in schools went nuts when this book was published. It could be argued that Michael Behe started the inteligent design theory and brought the debate of evolution back public stage.

Behe has been heavily criticized for daring to confront the evolution juggernaught and has made his book a must read for anyone interested in the evolution debate. This book is important and will shape the thinking of evolutionary scientists in the future, whether they like it or not.

First let's start with a quote from The National Academy of Science. " Creationism, I.D. and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

Mr. Behe uses the terms darwinism, darwinian evolution, darwinian gradualism through-out his book instead of modern evolution because he knows this name carries alot of heated imagery in the minds of the fundamentalist. If confronted with the findings of modern day evolution I think Mr. Behe would realize just how shakey the ground for his ideas would become.
He condems Prof. Doolittle for using a "yin yang" analogy but goes on to give boring and irrealivant analogy after analogy of his own.
He states that 90 persent of Americans believe in God as if the truth were dictated by a show of hands. If that were true then he might want to convert to Islam since the Muslim faith is the largest religious group in the world.
This leads me to my next problem with Mr. Behe's book. He is constantly refering to an intelligent designer or intelligent agent, and then speaking of the supernatural and divine. Here I have two questions.
1. Why use the singular noun? Why not appeal to many intelligent designers or agents?
2. Why could'nt these creators be "natural" as opposed to supernatural?

Which leads me to my final gripe.
Mr. Behe is constantly telling us how the scientific evidence points to an intelligent designer but never offers his own testable proof. Complexity is not proof in and of itself. What is the indentity of this creator? He does'nt say. The whole book seemed to be a rant against scientist who do not agree with his view. Mr. Behe seems to think there's this big conspiracy against the truth. Who's truth? His.

First let's start with a quote from The National Academy of Science. " Creationism, I.D. and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

Mr. Behe uses the terms darwinism, darwinian evolution, darwinian gradualism through-out his book instead of modern evolution because he knows this name carries alot of heated imagery in the minds of the fundamentalist. If confronted with the findings of modern day evolution I think Mr. Behe would realize just how shakey the ground for his ideas would become.
He condems Prof. Doolittle for using a "yin yang" analogy but goes on to give boring and irrealivant analogy after analogy of his own.
He states that 90 persent of Americans believe in God as if the truth were dictated by a show of hands. If that were true then he might want to convert to Islam since the Muslim faith is the largest religious group in the world.
This leads me to my next problem with Mr. Behe's book. He is constantly refering to an intelligent designer or intelligent agent, and then speaking of the supernatural and divine. Here I have two questions.
1. Why use the singular noun? Why not appeal to many intelligent designers or agents?
2. Why could'nt these creators be "natural" as opposed to supernatural?

Which leads me to my final gripe.
Mr. Behe is constantly telling us how the scientific evidence points to an intelligent designer but never offers his own testable proof. Complexity is not proof in and of itself. What is the indentity of this creator? He does'nt say. The whole book seemed to be a rant against scientist who do not agree with his view. Mr. Behe seems to think there's this big conspiracy against the truth. Who's truth? His.

Functionally interdependent irreducible complexities....fascinating. How can these be adequately explained? I find it truly amazing.

Down to earth with complexity explained in a simple readable way. This is a very good source to dispute one of the most absurd notions in the history of the world....evolution. Fantastic, logical, and full of expert knowledge. Dispute it if you wish, but truth is evident. God is real!

I find "Darwin's black box" is one of the most interesting books about our recent understanding of "evolution". From the historical perspective, Aristotle (367-347 B.C.) was entirely convinced that the bat is a bird based on the common ancient belief that all Birds fly! Interestingly and based on experiments (not only on the sense of observation or experience), scientists discovered that bats are mammals after careful examination and studying of the bats. Moreover, mathematicians spent very long time accepting the belief the total measurement of the triangle internal angles is 180 degree( this is now known as Euclidean geometry), however scientists discovered that some triangles' internal angles could be less or more than 180 degree(non Euclidean geometry)!!.
I do believe that the scientific problems have to be dissected via logic(not by religious/anti-religious belief) and through the experimental proofs (not only by observations and experiences); this is why I believe that Dawrin's hypotheses failed to explain the origin of species at the molecular level! Recent advances in molecular biology and biochemistry proved that most of the cellular proteins function as protein complexes or small devices (DNA replication, transcription, Protein translation....etc). If you mutated a specific protein domain/motif of the components of these complexes, you will loss the function of the complex. Thus, how did evolution evolve such well-organized complexes?!!!
Moreover, non-genetic inheritance can not also be explained by Darwin's hypotheses. For example, plasma membrane lipids must be replicated from the pre-existed part of the cell membrane; not only from information comes from genetic materials. Similarly, the non-genetic coding pattern of the nucleosome methylation. Even at the macro level, evolution can not prove/explain how social behavior in some species had been evolved; for example ants, bees,...etc. Moreover, Darwin's hypotheses failed to explain the beauty in nature or even the aims of living our life. I do recommend readers to search pubmed net for the author recent publications and read them along this book.

Like all books dealing with controversial topics and which attempt to actually answer questions rather than wade about in a non-committal and ultimately unhelpful middle ground, I made a bet with myself: when I looked at the reviews of this book on Amazon, I would find something resembling a u-shaped distribution. People would either love the book and award it 5 stars or hate it and award it 1 star.

And, of course, that is exactly what I found: binary "love it" or "hate it" responses from most readers.

Perhaps what I enjoyed most about this book was the tone. Unlike Richard Dawkins - the "shock jock" of atheistic evolutionists - who relies heavily upon verbal abuse and mockery of dissenting views to bolster his own, Behe attempts to let the science speak and not only tones down the rhetoric, he dispenses with it altogether. His tone throughout is that of a scientist, using Darwin's own criterion for falsifying macroevolution as set forth in "Origin of Species"; namely, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

In his book "Climbing Mount Improbable," Dawkins attempted to show that by making the changes required by Darwinian evolution granular enough and small enough, that to ascend even the tallest mountain of improbability we need merely break the journey into minute quanta such that the ascent is so gradual as to be barely noticeable and hence, ultimately achievable. Fine. But as Behe points out so compellingly here, the devil is in the details. Behe takes the criteria set forth by Darwin, and the "pop science" of Dawkins, and puts them to the test showing that some steps cannot be made arbitrarily small or occur independent of other steps. Dawkins asserts an idea and seems content to let someone else slog through the details. In contrast, Behe concerns himself here with such details.

What Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, shows is that some steps cannot be made infinitesimally small and "simple." Instead, he discusses "irreducible complexity" whereby the building blocks of life are now accessible to science through the relatively new discipline of biochemistry. Biochemistry shows that as we open the so-called "black box" of Darwinian evolution where we had to previously content ourselves mostly with inputs and outputs because the box's innner workings were not accessible, we are now in a position to actually see how the "black box" works at its most fundamental levels. And what do we find? That far from being simple, the more we increase the power on the microscope, the more we find that life is horrendously more complex than imagined. Behe demonstrates, though the concept of irreducible complexity, that certain features cannot be made arbitrarily simpler by insisting that its constituent parts evolved gradually and individually. All of the pieces would have *had* to appear simultaneously which a Darwinian model simply cannot accommodate.

Detractors (such as Dawkins) are quick to say things like "this could have happened" or "here's an example of what might have occurred" but dreaming up a sequence of events is light years away from actually showing *how* it could occur, chemically and mathematically. Dawkins should consider a career at Cartoon Network developing storyboards because his real talent lies in dreaming up fanciful ways things might occur, without those troublesome tethers to reality. On second thought, storyboarding is pretty much what he's doing on the BBC already, so I guess he's discovered his calling although he prefers to call it "science."

Behe selects several examples of things that could not have evolved because they cannot be explained by "numerous, successive, slight modifications." Among these are the blood clotting mechanism, flagella, and the immune system. He shows that a postulate requiring these appear via a series of steps is simply unworkable within the framework of Darwinian evolution. Some steps, when reduced to their smallest, remain so utterly enormous that they move from the realm of the improbable to the impossible.

Finally, Behe does an excellent job of addressing the issues of this debate that are so often fraught with emotion; namely, that to posit a designer instead of purely naturalistic, gradualistic chance is equivalent to mixing science and religion. He makes a strong case for why this is *not* so, drawing on our experience with the science/religion controversy that once surrounded the Big Bang theory of the universe's origin.

I urge you to read the book and decide for yourself if Intelligent Design is scientifically sound and can exist independent of one's beliefs regarding a deity. I believe it can and I believe Behe's book makes an exceedingly strong case for such an assertion.

I find "Darwin's black box" is one of the most interesting books about our recent understanding of "evolution". From the historical perspective, Aristotle (367-347 B.C.) was entirely convinced that the bat is a bird based on the common ancient belief that all Birds fly! Interestingly and based on experiments (not only the sense of observation or experience), scientists discovered that bats are mammals after careful examination and studying of the bats. Moreover, mathematicians spent very long time accepting the belief the total measurement of the triangle internal angles is 180 degree( this is now known as Euclidean geometry), however scientists discovered that some triangles could be less or more than 180 degree(non Euclidean geometry)!!.
I do believe that the scientific problems have to the scientists (not by religious belief) and through the experimental proof (not by observations and experiences); this is why Dawrin's hypotheses failed to explain the origin of species at the molecular level! For example, most of our cellular proteins function as protein complexes or small devices (DNA replication, transcription, Protein translation....etc). If you mutated a specific protein domain/motif of the components of these complexes, you will loss the function of the complex. Thus, how did evolution evolve such well-organized complexes?!!!
Moreover, non-genetic inheritance can not also be explained by Darwin's hypotheses. For example, plasma membrane lipids must be replicated from the pre-existed part of the cell membrane; not only from information comes from genetic materials. Similarly, the non-genetic coding pattern of the nucleosome methylation. Even at the macro level, evolution could not prove/explain how social behavior in some species had been evolved; for example ants, bees,...etc. Moreover, Darwin's hypotheses failed to explain the beauty in nature or even the aims of living our life. I highly recommend readers to search pubmed net for the author recent publications and read them along this book.

Like all books dealing with controversial topics and which attempt to actually answer questions rather than wade about in a non-committal and ultimately unhelpful middle ground, I made a bet with myself: when I looked at the reviews of this book on Amazon, I would find something resembling a u-shaped distribution. People would either love the book and award it 5 stars or hate it and award it 1 star.

And, of course, that is exactly what I found: binary "love it" or "hate it" responses from most readers.

Perhaps what I enjoyed most about this book was the tone. Unlike Richard Dawkins - the "shock jock" of atheistic evolutionists - who relies heavily upon verbal abuse and mockery of dissenting views to bolster his own, Behe attempts to let the science speak and not only tones down the rhetoric, he dispenses with it altogether. His tone throughout is that of a scientist, using Darwin's own criterion for falsifying macroevolution as set forth in "Origin of Species"; namely, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

In his book "Climbing Mount Improbable," Dawkins attempted to show that by making the changes required by Darwinian evolution granular enough and small enough, that to ascend even the tallest mountain of improbability we need merely break the journey into minute quanta such that the ascent is so gradual as to be barely noticeable and hence, ultimately achievable. Fine. But as Behe points out so compellingly here, the devil is in the details. Behe takes the criteria set forth by Darwin, and the "pop science" of Dawkins, and puts them to the test showing that some steps cannot be made arbitrarily small or occur independent of other steps. Dawkins asserts an idea and seems content to let someone else slog through the details. In contrast, Behe concerns himself here with such details.

What Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Leheigh University in Pennsylvania, shows is that some steps cannot be made infinitesimally small and "simple." Instead, he discusses "irreducible complexity" whereby the building blocks of life are now accessible to science through the relatively new discipline of biochemistry. Biochemistry shows that as we open the so-called "black box" of Darwinian evolution where we had to previously content ourselves mostly with inputs and outputs because the box was not accessible, we are now in a position to actually see how the "black box" works at its most fundamental levels. And what do we find? That far from being simple, the more we increase the power on the microscope, the more we find that life is horrendously more complex than imagined. Behe demonstrates, though the concept of irreducible complexity, that certain features cannot be made arbitrarily simpler by insisting that its constituent parts evolved gradually and individually. All of the pieces would have *had* to appear simultaneously which a Darwinian model simply cannot accommodate.

Behe selects several examples of things that could not have evolved because they cannot be explained by "numerous, successive, slight modifications." Among these are the blood clotting mechanism, flagella, and the immune system. He shows that a postulate requiring these appear via a series of steps is simply unworkable within the framework of Darwinian evolution. Some steps, when reduced to their smallest, remain so utterly enormous that they move from the realm of the improbable to the impossible.

Finally, Behe does an excellent job of addressing the issues of this debate that are so often fraught with emotion; namely, that to posit a designer instead of purely naturalistic, gradualistic chance is equivalent to mixing science and religion. He makes a strong case for why this is *not* so, drawing on our experience with the science/religion controversy that once surrounded the Big Bang theory of the universe's origin.

I urge you to read the book and decide for yourself if Intelligent Design is scientifically sound and can exist independent of one's beliefs regarding a deity. I believe it can and I believe Behe makes an exceedingly strong case for such an assertion.

It is so funny and ironic to see so many people so desperate in trying to defend evolution. Why? Because so many people have defended this theory for centuries and its official collapse would mean they have wasted their life defending something which is non-sense. We are taught evolution as a ''fact'' at school but once we have common sense enough to think for ourselves we do realise that it is a total pile of dump and non sense and I thank God that people such as Michael Behe and many others do exist to stand up and talk about it, yet many mock the believers are ''weak'' ''less-intelligent'', but hey, this has always been like this, if we examine the holy scriptures, that is Jewish, Christian and Muslims, we notice such arrogant, unthankfull people have always existed and have always claimed superiority and mocked those who had faith. So I have stopped being worried about such people, they will come to know the truth in the end and it will be too late, if they only do read this or any other book, or even think sincerely or in an open minded way for a minute, they will realise that believing in Atheism/Evolution, requires much much much etc more faith than belief in God. But yet they buy anything that can put away the idea of God because they hate that such a possibility can even exist.

In my opinion, the worst thing is that these people who so strongly support this dead theory (or should I say religion) will not be able to support one another when they do face the unescapable, that is the meeting with the lord God.

I hope many will open their eyes.

''God is the Protector of those who believe, while the disbelievers have no protector'' 47-11 Holy Qu'ran

''Do they not reflect within themselves: God did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them two but with truth, and (for) an appointed term. And most surely most of the people are deniers of the meeting of their Lord'' 38-8 Holy Qu'ran

''Those who behave arrogantly on the earth in defiance of right them will I turn away from My signs: Even if they see all the signs, they will not believe in them; and if they see the way of right conduct, they will not adopt it as the way; but if they see the way of error, that is the way they will adopt. For they have rejected our signs, and failed to take warning from them'' 7-146 Holy Qu'ran

Behe's prose is engaging and enjoyable, but this attempt to refute the theory of evolution does not convince.

The basic thesis of Behe's book is that though the theory of evolution may explain the fossil record and the anatomies of living things, it cannot explain the microscopic functioning of, for example, vision, the bacterial flagellum, and the immune system (p. 22). Indeed, Behe argues that evolutionary biology has been completely silent on the subject of how a cell's molecular machinery has evolved: "No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences. . . can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion" (p. 187. Compare pp. 179, 185).

On the basis of this alleged silence, Behe suggests a return to William Paley's famous "watchmaker" argument (aka the argument from design): if a microbiological structure is "irreducibly complex" (defined on p. 39), Behe says, it cannot have evolved, and so must have been the work of an Intelligent Designer.

Unfortunately, this house of cards is built on balderdash. Searches of PubMed and similar databases for terms like "evolution of rhodopsin" and "evolution of flagellum" turn up detailed discussions of the evolution of microscopic biological processes dating back to the 1970s, to say nothing of books like The Molecular Evolution of Life (1986).

This book also has an unfortunate tendency to misrepresent biology and what biologists say about it. On pages 26-30, for example, Behe quotes a number of biologists such as Lynn Margulis, John McDonald, and Jerry Coyne out of context to make it sound as if they think that the theory of evolution is inadequate or deeply problematic. He also refers to "punctuated equilibrium" as "a mechanism other than natural selection" when it is really no such thing (pp. 27-28).

In its misrepresentation of the current state of evolutionary biology, Behe's book is problematic. In its apparently deliberate misquotation of scientific authorities, it is deeply troubling. In its attempt to replace Charles Darwin's arguments with William Paley's, it is downright laughable.

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin wrote:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct."

Fomrner scientist Michael Behe quotes this in Chapter two of his book. Well not exactly; Behe quotes only the first sentence, leaving his readers in the dark about the fact that Darwin answered his own question, and that he realized evidence might be irretrievably buried in the ash heap of history. This is a dishonest practice known as "quote mining."

Later in his book, Behe even reverses the sense of the quoted sentence to demand that it is up to scientists to establish, step by step, exactly a sequence of events that occurred millions or billions of years ago, when the burden of proof rests upon him to establish that it could not have happened without supernatural intervention.

Behe claims that biochemical "irreducible complexity" is his evidence that complex molecules and pathways could not have come about naturally. Scientist reject this because natural biological mechanisms are already known which can accomplish just that: gene duplication, recombination, endosymbiosis, exaption, etc.

Behe testified in the first ID trial in Dover, PA and his claims did not hold up well under questioning. At one point he acknowledge that a looser definition of "scientific theory" which he proposed to include ID as a theory would also admit astrology as a scientific theory. Behe writes in chapter 11 that the attribution of biological function to design "is so ambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrodinger, Pasteur and Darwin." The scientific community does not agree that design has been discovered.

Behe writes at the end of chapter 8, "'Publish or perish' is a proverb that academicians take seriously. If you do not publish your work for the rest of the community to evaluate, then you have no business in academia." How odd then that Behe has not published his ideas for academia, but instead writes non-peer-reviewed book for the general audience. (Michael Atchison has acknowledged that he cast the deciding vote for publication of DBB without even seeing a manuscript.)

It is odd that Behe makes these claims despite his admission that evolution has been observed, natural selection has been observed, speciation and has been observed. He acknowledged that naturalistic evolution happens, but holds that sometimes miracles happen instead; always when no one is looking. Behe provides no actual evidence of miraculous intervention.

I found the book very tedious, it took me about a month to get through the whole thing. The constant stream of falsehoods and distortions was very tiring.

Dr. Michael Behe is a thorough scholar. Here, he trashes the myth of evolution beyond repair by showing that the simplistic solution evolutionists offer for the physical phenomena of complexity makes grand promises but fails to deliver. Darwinian evolution grew up in an era when science was rather primative in its understanding of biology and chemistry. What is remarkable is that many today continue to employ darwinian evolution to explain chemical-biological aspects of nature. To do so is to underestimate the complexity of nature. When the evolutionist realizes this, he falls back on his blind faith that "time" will somehow manage the process of evolution. Darwinian evolution employed as explanation for complexity in nature is tantamount to using simple arithematic to solve problems only the calculus can solve. It's like using Galileo's telescope to survey the red giants in astronomy. Impossible. Darwinian evolution is a cryptic rationalism because it attempts to use occam's razor to cut away aspects of nature in order to subject nature to your pet theory. To do so is unethical since it is dishonest. But, of course, evolutionists don't believe in morality, so any ethic of integrity escapes them.

None of the reviews attack Behe's arguments. Instead, they retreat to the criticism that Behe doesn't delve deep into bio-chemical science. It is noteworhty that most evolutionists aren't familiar with the concept of complexity. So, the charge against Behe is hypocritical. Nevertheless, Behe's point is grounded in good faith. First of all, the concept of complexity involves abstract algebra, namely, "group theory." Recall that the solution to all quadratic equations lies in the quadratic formula. This formula was arrived at by completing the square of the general quadratic equation. In other words, Ax^2+Bx+C=0. Simply empty the equations of all content and complete the square. Out pops the general formula that solves all quadratic equations. As any educated person should know, Galois proved that equations of degree 5 and above are not subject to solution by any simple formula. You cannot formulate a formula that can solve equations of degree 5 and above. The method Galois used was the simple method of group theory which says no formula exists. The reason group theory is so effective is because it lays bare the concept of "symmetry." Behe's point is that symmetry pervades nature. Symmetry coincides with intelligent design, not the random process of throwing a bunch of dimes in the air that happens to land in a cluster. That is why group theory is employed in string theory, quantum theory in general, and even in chemistry.

Theoretically, differential equations imply a determinism, whereas, group theory merely unpacks the symmetries in nature without implying any philosoophical determinism. Some symmetries boggle the imagination. The relationship of all parts of the eye to each other presents symmetries that are hard to create a mathematical model for. Since group theory is the key method in creating mathematical models of symmetry, and since mankind's utilization of that method is limited, scientific knowledge is limited. Recall the unique chemistries in nature, such as spider or snake venom or the bio-chemical process that keeps a certain bug preserved in freezing cold climates, and one has yet to see mankind create in a chemical lab anything so innovative and complex. See W. W. Sawyer's book "Abstract Algebra" for a clear and simple introduction to group theory.

Here is the main thrust of Behe. Although bio-chemical studies utilize group theory to unpack all the symmetries in nature, there is a complexity that escalates beyond our human ability to fathom. Thus, although basic group theory is so easy that a caveman can do it (excuse the pun) there are limitations of the human mind in utilizing group theory just as there are limitations of the human mind solving all differential equations. Most differential equations are not solved. Similarly, the PH.D. doesn't get anymore farther in his understanding than Behe does in this book. To demand that Behe explore the myriad of symmetries with group theory before we accept his thesis as plausible is as unrealistic a criticism as demanding that he solve all differential equations.

The evolutionist asks us to believe not a bunch of dimes thrown randomly in the air landed "once" in a cluster, but that trillions of times a bunch of dimes fell randomly on the ground and landed in a cluster. It's like the proverbial coin always landing on heads instead of tails everytime for trillions of times. If you can believe that, you shouldn't have any trouble believing in intelligent design.

If any book could be called as such, this is THE one book that was most instrumental in my becoming a believer. Until reading this book, I was not even sure if I confidently believed there WAS a God, but after burning through this rather thick book in just seven days, I now believe without a shred of doubt! In this wonderful book, Behe provided convincing scientific evidence in favor of Creative Design. Even my extremely sceptical (and scientific) mind quickly succumbed to his micro-biological arguments based on "irreducible complexity." Give this to your scientifically minded friends and watch their solid belief in Darwin shrink before your very eyes!

Michael Behe's book: Darwin's Black Box, a Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, is one book among many that I have been meaning to read over the years, knowing that it is an important work and yet I have managed to justify a fairly long delay in doing so. In fact, of the people that I know who have this book in their library, almost all of them admit that they want to read it at some point, and yet they too have been slow to do so because of other reading priorities. I'm not sure if this is the case, but it seems that while most Christians are interested in the evolution/intelligent design argument, perhaps most of us are caught up with other questions, issues, and battles that challenge the church in the modern day. But having finally read this work myself I would kindly recommend that you do the same as well. The main reason is this: Michael Behe has delivered an important argument for intelligent design that places yet another dagger into the heart of Darwinism.

Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and it is quite clear that he writes from the pedigree of his academic background. It is important to note that Behe's opposition to Evolution is not based upon Scriptural grounds; instead, it is based upon the question of scientific data alone. Therefore I would caution and remind the reader that this is not a biblical defense of creationism, instead it is a secular/scientific critique of Darwinism. In brief, Behe's key argument can be reduced to the two words that now appear in almost all books dealing with Darwinism, whether pro or con: irreducible complexity. Behe takes the reader into the microcosm of the biochemical machines that are utilized in living cells, and shows us that these irreducibly complex structures have no logical precursor from which they could possibly evolve. To illustrate his point, Behe repeatedly uses the analogy of a basic mouse trap. A mouse trap (like the biochemical machines in cells) is irreducibly complex - meaning that if any component of the mouse trap were removed (the wooden base, spring, hammer, latch or trigger) then no functional trap would exist. Such non-functionality is a contradiction to the essential expectation of evolutionary theory. Evolution is believed to occur because changes/mutations are beneficial to the living organism, therefore a non-beneficial precursor is simply not a Darwinian option. Behe uses a number of biochemical systems in order to make his point, not the least of which are the cilium or flagellum, whose irreducible complexities reveal that Darwinism is not the product of empirical science; instead it is no more than a theoretical hypothesis; a philosophical hopeful monster if you'll pardon the science-pun. As stated earlier, Darwin's Black Box is an important read because it has had an important impact on the whole debate surrounding Darwinism. Frankly, it is difficult to find a book on Evolution, or Creationism, that doesn't address the subject of irreducible complexity any more. And for those who aren't interested in the debate itself, this book still supplies many wonderful details which disclose God's power and wisdom in creating and sustaining life. For believers, it can be a great source of edification.

Finally, Behe has done something in this book that isn't particularly easy: he has made it so that it can be studied at different levels. For those who want to explore the biochemical details of his argument, they can proceed through texts that are marked out by Behe as being more technical in nature. Those who want to avoid the technical sections can still get the main argument of the book without the deeper layers of biochemical analysis. I would say that this is a must-read for those who desire to go more deeply into the apologetics of Creationism - even though Behe himself is not a young-earth Creationist.

Michael Behe's book: Darwin's Black Box, a Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, is one book among many that I have been meaning to read over the years, knowing that it is an important work and yet I have managed to justify a fairly long delay in doing so. In fact, of the people that I know who have this book in their library, almost all of them admit that they want to read it at some point, and yet they too have been slow to do so because of other reading priorities. I'm not sure if this is the case, but it seems that while most Christians are interested in the evolution/intelligent design argument, perhaps most of us are caught up with other questions, issues, and battles that challenge the church in the modern day. But having read this work myself (finally) I would kindly recommend that you do the same as well. The main reason is this: Michael Behe has delivered an important argument for intelligent design that will continue to be a significant thorn in the side of the evolutionist.

Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and it is quite clear that he writes from the pedigree of his academic background. It is important to note that Behe's opposition to Evolution is not based upon Scriptural grounds; instead, it is based upon the question of scientific data alone. Therefore I would caution and remind the reader that this is not a biblical defense of creationism, instead it is a secular/scientific critique of Darwinism. In brief, Behe's key argument can be reduced to the two words that now appear in almost all books dealing with Darwinism, whether pro or con: irreducible complexity. Behe takes the reader into the microcosm of the biochemical machines that are utilized in living cells, and shows us that these irreducibly complex structures have no logical precursor from which they could possibly evolve. To illustrate his point, Behe repeatedly uses the analogy of a basic mouse trap. A mouse trap (like the biochemical machines in cells) is irreducibly complex - meaning that if any component of the mouse trap were removed (the wooden base, spring, hammer, latch or trigger) then no functional trap would exist. Such non-functionality is a contradiction to the essential expectation of evolutionary theory. Evolution is believed to occur because changes/mutations are beneficial to the living organism, therefore a non-beneficial precursor is simply not a Darwinian option. Behe uses a number of biochemical sys