Darwin's Black Box (1996) - Michael Behe - See biography in appendix

Molecular Machines

Machines turn cellular switches on and off, sometimes killing the cell or causing it to grow. Solar-powered machines capture the energy of photons and store it in chemicals. Electrical machines allow current to flow through nerves. Manufacturing machines build other molecular machines, as well as themselves. Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, and ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex.

If you focus your search on the question of how molecular machines - the basis of life - developed, you find an eerie and complete silence. The complexity of life's foundation has paralyzed science's attempt to account for it; molecular machines raise an as-yet-impenetrable barrier to Darwinism's universal reach. (Behe 1996)

Early Controversy over Darwinism

Mathematicians over the years have complained that Darwinism's numbers just do not add up. Information theorist Hubert Yockey argues that the information needed to begin life could not have developed by chance.

In 1966 leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists held a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia because the organizer, Martin Kaplan, had overheard "a rather weird discussion between four mathematicians….on mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution." A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong. The mathematicians were not persuaded that the fault was theirs. As one said, “There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology.” (Behe 1996)

Darwin's theory has generated dissent from the time it was published, and not just for theological reasons. In 1871 one of Darwin's critics, St. George Mivart, listed his objections to the theory, many of which are surprisingly similar to those raised by modern critics.

What is to be brought forward (against Darwinism) may be summed up as follows: That "Natural Selection" is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures. That it does not harmonize with the co-existence of closely similar structures of diverse origin. (Behe 1996)

Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down." (Behe 1996)

Irreducible Complexity

What is an irreducibly complex system? According to Behe: By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. (Behe, 1996)

In order to be a candidate for natural selection a system must have minimal function: the ability to accomplish a task in physically realistic circumstances. As an example: suppose the world's first outboard motor had been designed and was being marketed. The motor functioned smoothly- burning gasoline at a controlled rate and causing the propeller to turn at one revolution per hour. Few people if any would buy such a machine, because it fails to perform at a level suitable for its purpose. Minimal function is critical in an evolutionary process. One of the roadblocks of evolution is reaching minimal function immediately. Evolution cannot accumulate proteins and less than minimal processes or natural selection will reject them. (Behe 1996)

Let us now take a closer look at one of these machines. Behe describes in some detail the bacterial flagellum.

The bacterial flagellum is a long, hair-like filament embedded in the cell membrane. The external filament consists of a single type of protein, called "flagellin." The flagellin filament is the paddle surface that contacts the liquid during swimming. At the end of the flagellin filament near the surface of the cell, there is a bulge in the thickness of the flagellum. It is here that the filament attaches to the rotor drive. The attachment material is comprised of something called "hook protein." The filament of a bacterial flagellum, unlike a cilium, contains no motor protein; if it is broken off, the filament just floats stiffly in the water. Therefore the motor that rotates the filament-propeller must be located somewhere else. Experiments have demonstrated that it is located at the base of the flagellum, where electron microscopy shows several ring structures occur. The rotary nature of the flagellum has clear, unavoidable consequences, as noted in a popular biochemistry textbook.

The bacterial rotary motor must have the same mechanical elements as other rotary devices: a rotor (the rotating element) and a stator (the stationary element).

Other elements mentioned in the diagram accompanying Behe's description include; Bushings, studs and C ring as part of the stator, rod or drive shaft, the rotor made up of (an S ring, and an M ring). All these structures are proteins required for the efficient operation of the flagellum. About forty other proteins are necessary for function. The exact roles of most of the proteins are not known, but they include signals to turn the motor on and off; "bushing" proteins to allow the flagellum to penetrate through the cell membrane and cell wall; proteins to assist in the assembly of the structure; and proteins to regulate the production of the proteins that make up the flagellum. (Behe 1996)

Evidence for Molecular Evolution

Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature - in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books - that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculation. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that - like contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year - the assertions of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster. (Behe 1996)

Design is evident when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components. The greater the specificity of the interacting components required to produce the function, the greater is our confidence in the conclusion of design. (Behe 1996)

The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer. (Behe 1996)

The designing that is currently going on in biochemistry laboratories throughout the world - the activity that is required to plan a new plasminogen that can be cleaved by thrombin, or a cow that gives growth hormone in its milk, or a bacteria that secretes human insulin - is analogous to the designing that preceded the bacterial flagellum. (Behe 1996)

The fact that biochemical systems can be designed by intelligent agents for their own purposes is conceded by all scientists, even Richard Dawkins. Since Dawkins agrees that biochemical systems can be designed, and that people who did not see or hear about the designing can nonetheless detect it, then the question of whether a given biochemical system was designed boils down simply to adducing evidence to support design. (Behe 1996)

Behe - Major Points

1. Highly sophisticated molecular machines control much of cellular activity.
2. The origin of these machines can be found nowhere in scientific literature.
3. Many mathematicians have agreed that there is a considerable gap between neo- Darwinian evolutionary theory that cannot be bridged with biology as we know it today.
4. The problems identified over a hundred years ago, are still present today.
5. Darwin recognized that his theory would fail if a complex organ could not be formed by numerous slight modifications.
6. Irreducibly complexity identifies just such organs or structures; and many of them.
7. Natural Selection appears not to be a viable method to account for these machines.
8. Design is evident when separate individual components are ordered to create a function beyond the ability of the components themselves.
9. Design is a detectable entity.

Bibliography

Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
New York, NY. Simon & Schuster. p. 4-5.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Ibid. p. 29.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Ibid. p. 30.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Ibid. p. 39.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Ibid. p. 39.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Ibid. p. 45-46.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Ibid. p. 72-73.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Ibid. p. 185-186.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Ibid. p. 194.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Ibid. p. 197.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Ibid. p. 205.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Ibid. p. 203.

Appendix

Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures.

In addition to publishing over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals, he has also written editorial features in Boston Review, American Spectator, and the New York Times. His book, Darwin's Black Box discusses the implications for neo-Darwinism of what he calls "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems. The book was internationally reviewed in over one hundred publications and recently named by National Review and World magazine as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century.

Behe has presented and debated his work at major universities throughout North America and England.

Prepared by

Ed Hopkins is a science educator with 32 years of experience teaching science. Ed has an undergraduate degree in chemistry and biology from George Peabody Teacher’s College, TN and a M.Ed. from Atlantic University, FL. Ed has been working closely with the Creation Studies Institute, Ft. Lauderdale, FL since its inception in 1988.