What do you think?
Rate this book
The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
Michael Behe carefully assesses the evidence of what Darwin's mechanism of random mutation and selection can achieve in well documented cases, and shows that even in those cases that maximize its power as a creative force it has only been able to generate very trivial examples of evolutionary change. Could such an apparently impotent and mindless force really have built the sophisticated molecular devices found throughout nature? The answer, he insists, is no. The only common-sense explanation is intelligent design
336 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
88 people are currently reading
1114 people want to read
About the author
Michael J. Behe
26 books219 followersMichael 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.
Department of Biological Sciences
Iacocca Hall, Room D-221
111 Research Drive
Bethlehem, PA 18015
610-758-3474 voice
443-346-2436 fax
mjb1@lehigh.edu
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.
Department of Biological Sciences
Iacocca Hall, Room D-221
111 Research Drive
Bethlehem, PA 18015
610-758-3474 voice
443-346-2436 fax
mjb1@lehigh.edu
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews
June 5, 2010
Listened to this on CD and was VERY impressed. I had always assumed that "intelligent design" was just a code word used by fundamental Christians for creationism. Had no idea that anyone had thought the argument through so well. Behe mixes hard science (my 13 year-old swore he was speaking German) with clear analogies in order to present difficult concepts in a way that a non-scientist can at least follow. His arugments about the statistical problems with a purely Darwinist approach are very persuasive. Behe is also intellectually honest. He acknowledges where evolution is plausible, and he takes on challenges to his thinking. A fabulous book for anyone who is studying biology or has had questions about evolution.
January 15, 2023
The Abyss of Reason: The Limits of Michael Behe’s Scientific Thinking
Theodosius Dobzhansky, the great Russian-American population geneticist, one of the prominent biologists responsible for the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution, observed that “Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. It was true when he stated that decades ago; it is truer still today given the abundant wealth of excellent data from a diverse host of biological sciences: molecular biology and biochemistry, developmental biology, ecology, population genetics, systematics and paleobiology. All of which points clearly to both the fact of biological evolution and the key role of Natural Selection in producing the rich biological diversity of our Planet Earth. Claims which biochemist Michael Behe has tried so valiantly to deny in his “The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism”, proclaiming that Intelligent Design, not Evolution, is the best explanation for our planet’s biodiversity. However, all that Michael Behe has demonstrated so well in his latest diatribe against “Darwinism” is the constricted, twisted limits of his own scientific thought via extensive illogical reasoning, an improper understanding of probability theory, and a profound ignorance of evolutionary biology. Indeed, in his latest book, Michael Behe has descended into the dark, deep abyss of reason; it’s a senseless journey that any thoughtful potential reader of his book should refuse to undertake.
In the opening chapter “The Elements of Darwinism”, Behe presents a stereotypical portrait of “Darwinism”, or rather, the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution, hinting that he’s found excellent examples that refute it in his cursory examinations of the origins and transmittal of the diseases Malaria and HIV/AIDS. He also briefly alludes to the notion of an adaptive landscape that’s played such a crucial role in our understanding of population genetics and speciation, presented all too simplistically as if his intended audience was teenagers with limited attention spans, not presumably well-read, highly educated, adults. In the second chapter, “Arms Race or Trench Warfare?”, Behe ridicules the very notion of a co-evolutionary arms race between predators and prey, quickly dismissing the Red Queen’s hypothesis as a “silly statement” from Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland”, ignoring the existence of a substantial body of supporting scientific literature (Like so many great ideas in science, it was proposed independently, almost simultaneously, by two scientists; evolutionary biologist and paleobiologist Leigh Van Valen – who coined the term “Red Queen” - and evolutionary ecologist Michael Rosenzweig in the early 1970s. I should also note too that this was demonstrated clearly in the PBS “Evolution” television miniseries episode which illustrated the Red Queen through an intricate biochemical “arms race” between garter snakes and their highly toxic salamander prey.). In the chapter entitled “The Mathematical Limits of Darwinism”, Michael Behe offers some bizarre probability values (How did you compute them, Professor Behe, using which probability distribution? A Normal Distribution? A Binomial Distribution? A Poisson Distribution – that would make ample sense if the events described by him are indeed as rare as he states.) that purportedly support his contention of rare, random variation as something highly unlikely to produce anything other than the microevolution he does allude to, but never mentions explicitly (I am indebted to another Amazon.com customer reviewer, S. Allen, for pointing out the egregious error which Behe made in computing the probability of a malarial parasite producing a double mutation – and also erring in assuming that these mutations had to occur together, when the original scientific paper he cited from strongly implied that they did not (I’ll let the reader decide as to whether this was indeed wishful thinking on Behe’s part, or a gross distortion of the available published scientific evidence; I am inclined to believe the latter, because of other similar examples I have spotted elsewhere in this book.).).
More than half of “The Edge of Evolution” is devoted to pointing out the foibles of evolution as if random mutation was the key mechanism responsible for natural selection and then trotting out Intelligent Design as the more reasonable explanation for biological diversity, by stating once more, arguments he presented in his earlier book “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”. Surprisingly Behe refers again to his “mousetrap model” in support of his concept of “Irreducible Complexity”, without acknowledging Kenneth Miller’s effectively brilliant, devastating refutation which is posted at his personal website, www.millerandlevine.com.). Behe gets so mired in discussing the details of his biological “nanobots”, that he forgets the real reason why he refers to them, as the mechanistic rationale for explaining Earth’s past and present biodiversity as an artifact of Intelligent Design. Moreover, he does not offer any compelling alternative hypotheses that would support Intelligent Design as a more likely scientific theory accounting for this diversity. Instead, he refers again, and again, to how well-designed various cellular structures are, as if the citations by themselves, clearly demonstrate that these structures were indeed the products of Intelligent Design.
My most serious reservations about “The Edge of Evolution” are not just limited to Behe’s failure to demonstrate convincingly, from a scientific perspective, that Intelligent Design is a better theory than the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution (which has the Darwin/Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection as its central core.). Repeatedly, Behe has resorted to simplistic logical reasoning in trying to persuade his audience of the merit of his ideas (For example, in the chapter, “Arms Race or Trench Warefare?” he describes the co-evolutionary arms race between the ancestors of the modern cheetah and the gazelle in a literary style that’s more suited for Aesop’s Fables than a book that purportedly tries to present a viable scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.). He also misinterprets “The Spandrels of San Marco”, the classic scientific paper by paleobiologist Stephen Jay Gould and population geneticist Richard Lewontin, in the chapter entitled “The Cathedral And The Spandrels”, as a sterling example of Darwinism’s failure, when that was not the authors’ rationale for its writing nor how it is perceived today by many evolutionary biologists. While claiming to accept the reality of evolution as evidence for common descent, he ignores the fossil record, in instances like his terse dismissal of the Red Queen, and thus neglects the importance of appreciating the history of life in attempting to understand the origins of Planet Earth’s current biodiversity (For example, distinguished marine ecologist Geerat Vermeij has offered substantial evidence of a co-evolutionary arms race from his extensive studies of the marine fossil record; a most remarkable achievement since Vermeij has been blind almost from birth. Vermeij discusses this in admirable, eloquent prose in his book “Evolution and Escalation”.). Behe doesn’t appreciate the importance of the adaptive landscape – which he refers to as the “fitness landscape” - towards our understanding of the processes responsible for speciation, wrongly attributing it to British population geneticist Ronald Fisher, when it was actually derived by his American counterpart, Sewall Wright (Both of whom made key contributions to the Modern Synthesis theory – which Behe refers to as the “Neo-Darwinian Synthesis” – yet another incorrect usage of scientific terminology which appears too often in this book.). Last, but not least, Michael Behe lacks the literary eloquence of superb writers – and evolutionary biologists – Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Edward O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins, to name but a few, and he has offered to us, his unsuspecting readers, the literary equivalent of the RMS Titantic’s ill-fated maiden voyage.
Simon and Schuster truly has had a glorious history of introducing many distinguished writers of fiction and non-fiction to the world, ranging from the likes of Ernest Hemingway to Frank McCourt. It published distinguished evolutionary biologist – and paleobiologist – Niles Eldrdege’s first book for the general public, “Time Frames”, an engrossing memoir on the origins of the evolutionary theory known as “Punctuated Equilibrium” (which Eldredge proposed with his friend Stephen Jay Gould back in 1972). Regrettably, its excellent publishing history was tarnished with the original publication of “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”; now it is tarnished again with “The Edge of Evolution”. Clearly Michael Behe doesn’t deserve favorable recognition of the kind bestowed upon both Hemingway and McCourt, but rather, more intense scrutiny, and indeed, more condemnation, in the future, from his scientific peers and an interested public who recognizes that Intelligent Design is not just bad science, but a bad religious idea pretending to be science (The verdict which was issued by Republican Federal Judge John Jones at the conclusion of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial in which Michael Behe appeared as a key witness for the defense; oddly enough he doesn’t mention the trial nor its verdict in his book.). Those who believe he is due favorable recognition are condoning the ample lies, omissions, and distortions present in his latest book, and are all too willing to join him in his self-created abyss of reason.
(Reposted from my 2007 Amazon Review)
Theodosius Dobzhansky, the great Russian-American population geneticist, one of the prominent biologists responsible for the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution, observed that “Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. It was true when he stated that decades ago; it is truer still today given the abundant wealth of excellent data from a diverse host of biological sciences: molecular biology and biochemistry, developmental biology, ecology, population genetics, systematics and paleobiology. All of which points clearly to both the fact of biological evolution and the key role of Natural Selection in producing the rich biological diversity of our Planet Earth. Claims which biochemist Michael Behe has tried so valiantly to deny in his “The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism”, proclaiming that Intelligent Design, not Evolution, is the best explanation for our planet’s biodiversity. However, all that Michael Behe has demonstrated so well in his latest diatribe against “Darwinism” is the constricted, twisted limits of his own scientific thought via extensive illogical reasoning, an improper understanding of probability theory, and a profound ignorance of evolutionary biology. Indeed, in his latest book, Michael Behe has descended into the dark, deep abyss of reason; it’s a senseless journey that any thoughtful potential reader of his book should refuse to undertake.
In the opening chapter “The Elements of Darwinism”, Behe presents a stereotypical portrait of “Darwinism”, or rather, the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution, hinting that he’s found excellent examples that refute it in his cursory examinations of the origins and transmittal of the diseases Malaria and HIV/AIDS. He also briefly alludes to the notion of an adaptive landscape that’s played such a crucial role in our understanding of population genetics and speciation, presented all too simplistically as if his intended audience was teenagers with limited attention spans, not presumably well-read, highly educated, adults. In the second chapter, “Arms Race or Trench Warfare?”, Behe ridicules the very notion of a co-evolutionary arms race between predators and prey, quickly dismissing the Red Queen’s hypothesis as a “silly statement” from Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland”, ignoring the existence of a substantial body of supporting scientific literature (Like so many great ideas in science, it was proposed independently, almost simultaneously, by two scientists; evolutionary biologist and paleobiologist Leigh Van Valen – who coined the term “Red Queen” - and evolutionary ecologist Michael Rosenzweig in the early 1970s. I should also note too that this was demonstrated clearly in the PBS “Evolution” television miniseries episode which illustrated the Red Queen through an intricate biochemical “arms race” between garter snakes and their highly toxic salamander prey.). In the chapter entitled “The Mathematical Limits of Darwinism”, Michael Behe offers some bizarre probability values (How did you compute them, Professor Behe, using which probability distribution? A Normal Distribution? A Binomial Distribution? A Poisson Distribution – that would make ample sense if the events described by him are indeed as rare as he states.) that purportedly support his contention of rare, random variation as something highly unlikely to produce anything other than the microevolution he does allude to, but never mentions explicitly (I am indebted to another Amazon.com customer reviewer, S. Allen, for pointing out the egregious error which Behe made in computing the probability of a malarial parasite producing a double mutation – and also erring in assuming that these mutations had to occur together, when the original scientific paper he cited from strongly implied that they did not (I’ll let the reader decide as to whether this was indeed wishful thinking on Behe’s part, or a gross distortion of the available published scientific evidence; I am inclined to believe the latter, because of other similar examples I have spotted elsewhere in this book.).).
More than half of “The Edge of Evolution” is devoted to pointing out the foibles of evolution as if random mutation was the key mechanism responsible for natural selection and then trotting out Intelligent Design as the more reasonable explanation for biological diversity, by stating once more, arguments he presented in his earlier book “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”. Surprisingly Behe refers again to his “mousetrap model” in support of his concept of “Irreducible Complexity”, without acknowledging Kenneth Miller’s effectively brilliant, devastating refutation which is posted at his personal website, www.millerandlevine.com.). Behe gets so mired in discussing the details of his biological “nanobots”, that he forgets the real reason why he refers to them, as the mechanistic rationale for explaining Earth’s past and present biodiversity as an artifact of Intelligent Design. Moreover, he does not offer any compelling alternative hypotheses that would support Intelligent Design as a more likely scientific theory accounting for this diversity. Instead, he refers again, and again, to how well-designed various cellular structures are, as if the citations by themselves, clearly demonstrate that these structures were indeed the products of Intelligent Design.
My most serious reservations about “The Edge of Evolution” are not just limited to Behe’s failure to demonstrate convincingly, from a scientific perspective, that Intelligent Design is a better theory than the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution (which has the Darwin/Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection as its central core.). Repeatedly, Behe has resorted to simplistic logical reasoning in trying to persuade his audience of the merit of his ideas (For example, in the chapter, “Arms Race or Trench Warefare?” he describes the co-evolutionary arms race between the ancestors of the modern cheetah and the gazelle in a literary style that’s more suited for Aesop’s Fables than a book that purportedly tries to present a viable scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.). He also misinterprets “The Spandrels of San Marco”, the classic scientific paper by paleobiologist Stephen Jay Gould and population geneticist Richard Lewontin, in the chapter entitled “The Cathedral And The Spandrels”, as a sterling example of Darwinism’s failure, when that was not the authors’ rationale for its writing nor how it is perceived today by many evolutionary biologists. While claiming to accept the reality of evolution as evidence for common descent, he ignores the fossil record, in instances like his terse dismissal of the Red Queen, and thus neglects the importance of appreciating the history of life in attempting to understand the origins of Planet Earth’s current biodiversity (For example, distinguished marine ecologist Geerat Vermeij has offered substantial evidence of a co-evolutionary arms race from his extensive studies of the marine fossil record; a most remarkable achievement since Vermeij has been blind almost from birth. Vermeij discusses this in admirable, eloquent prose in his book “Evolution and Escalation”.). Behe doesn’t appreciate the importance of the adaptive landscape – which he refers to as the “fitness landscape” - towards our understanding of the processes responsible for speciation, wrongly attributing it to British population geneticist Ronald Fisher, when it was actually derived by his American counterpart, Sewall Wright (Both of whom made key contributions to the Modern Synthesis theory – which Behe refers to as the “Neo-Darwinian Synthesis” – yet another incorrect usage of scientific terminology which appears too often in this book.). Last, but not least, Michael Behe lacks the literary eloquence of superb writers – and evolutionary biologists – Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Edward O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins, to name but a few, and he has offered to us, his unsuspecting readers, the literary equivalent of the RMS Titantic’s ill-fated maiden voyage.
Simon and Schuster truly has had a glorious history of introducing many distinguished writers of fiction and non-fiction to the world, ranging from the likes of Ernest Hemingway to Frank McCourt. It published distinguished evolutionary biologist – and paleobiologist – Niles Eldrdege’s first book for the general public, “Time Frames”, an engrossing memoir on the origins of the evolutionary theory known as “Punctuated Equilibrium” (which Eldredge proposed with his friend Stephen Jay Gould back in 1972). Regrettably, its excellent publishing history was tarnished with the original publication of “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”; now it is tarnished again with “The Edge of Evolution”. Clearly Michael Behe doesn’t deserve favorable recognition of the kind bestowed upon both Hemingway and McCourt, but rather, more intense scrutiny, and indeed, more condemnation, in the future, from his scientific peers and an interested public who recognizes that Intelligent Design is not just bad science, but a bad religious idea pretending to be science (The verdict which was issued by Republican Federal Judge John Jones at the conclusion of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial in which Michael Behe appeared as a key witness for the defense; oddly enough he doesn’t mention the trial nor its verdict in his book.). Those who believe he is due favorable recognition are condoning the ample lies, omissions, and distortions present in his latest book, and are all too willing to join him in his self-created abyss of reason.
(Reposted from my 2007 Amazon Review)
September 26, 2009
anyone propagating the idea that the ID movement is a dead end, particularly after the Dover trials, should read this book. That there are differing views and interpretations of data must always be taken into consideration. But when there is this much controversy that generates the visceral comments from Behe's adversaries defies their allegiances to Darwinian orthodoxy. There is clearly another way to interpret all this data. Having now read this book in earnest, I'm afraid the controversy is far from over.
eg http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075
This blog has undergone such controversy that it has dominated science blogs for several weeks. The question is this: Why, if these people are so off, do they elicit such hostility? Maybe you should answer the question for yourself. The consequences of this subject are enormous.
eg http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075
This blog has undergone such controversy that it has dominated science blogs for several weeks. The question is this: Why, if these people are so off, do they elicit such hostility? Maybe you should answer the question for yourself. The consequences of this subject are enormous.
March 24, 2008
Really? His last two books didn't humiliate him enough? What part of "irreducible complexity is an illusion based on ignorance" doesn't this guy get? And who the heck made him the expert on what evolution can do and can't do? A degree in chemistry? If that were true, my Linguistics training makes me a good author. Hey, its all language, right???
March 22, 2009
While not for light reading, well worth the reading. Dr. Behe established in "Darwin's Black Box" that the cell is not simple and would be impossible to thus just "happen" (i.e. evolve) and he continues to delve into his arguments in "The Edge of Evolution". He also writes of the positives of Darwinism but then demolishes any strongholds it may claim. Excellent book.
February 2, 2011
Argues for Darwin's assertion of universal common descent, but questions the over-touted ability of its proposed mechanism, namely undirected natural selection acting on random mutation, in the light of experimental evidence.
May 11, 2012
Devastating. I hope the challenges of this book are taken seriously one day (preferably sooner rather than later). Enough hand-waving and empty pleas to "reason." The data doesn't match the theory anymore, and it needs to be addressed.
August 1, 2010
Behe is stuck in no-man's land between the Creationist and radical Darwinist. As such, I suspect he will not have many supporters, even if he is on to something. I went online and tried to find a single reasonable critical review and was disappointed by all of the ad hominem rubbish out there. As much as I don’t care for Dawkins, his review was the best I could find, and it was poor. The bottom line: There are gaps in the Darwinian synthesis. Darwinists say Behe appeals to God, and they appeal to future scientific discovery. Behe says he appeals to probabilities too insurmountable for current Darwinian mechanisms to ever overcome, and Darwinists wave off the problem with “just-so” stories. There is some truth in both perspectives. I just wish the Darwinists would put forth some well-argued critique of work like Behe's instead of bad-mouthing him.
In some ways Behe’s book reads like a retreat from "Black Box" by establishing a beachhead somewhere between the opposing sides but a little closer to orthodox Darwinism than before. I think everyone was a bit surprised by his position on common descent which is clearly more at home with Darwinists than Creationists. For those of us Christians who are more comfortable with ideas like Polkinghorne's "free process" theology, Behe's position is not a problem. But this is a slippery spot to hang out. Where do material processes stop and design start? Will Behe continue to move his position in his next work?
Finally, Behe spent a lot of time on evo-devo and almost nothing on cooptation which is still the most common hand-waving response to Irreducible Complexity I hear from lay people. If diversity comes from swapping around a bunch of lego blocks (or more complex modules built from lego blocks) are the blocks irreducibly complex themselves? Behe says yes and tries to prove it in this book. Darwinists say no and appeal to future scientific discovery to fill in the gaps. The jury is still out in my opinion.
In some ways Behe’s book reads like a retreat from "Black Box" by establishing a beachhead somewhere between the opposing sides but a little closer to orthodox Darwinism than before. I think everyone was a bit surprised by his position on common descent which is clearly more at home with Darwinists than Creationists. For those of us Christians who are more comfortable with ideas like Polkinghorne's "free process" theology, Behe's position is not a problem. But this is a slippery spot to hang out. Where do material processes stop and design start? Will Behe continue to move his position in his next work?
Finally, Behe spent a lot of time on evo-devo and almost nothing on cooptation which is still the most common hand-waving response to Irreducible Complexity I hear from lay people. If diversity comes from swapping around a bunch of lego blocks (or more complex modules built from lego blocks) are the blocks irreducibly complex themselves? Behe says yes and tries to prove it in this book. Darwinists say no and appeal to future scientific discovery to fill in the gaps. The jury is still out in my opinion.
April 4, 2015
As good as his first, Behe does a tremendous job of supporting his thesis. He takes great pains to separate common decent from evolution which I had never seen done to this extent. This is important to make his case that evolution can and does happen, but never on a macro level that creates...it destroys instead. This was the first time that I had heard about genes that humans share with other animals that are now obsolete due to mistakes...ones that are also present in the other species. Much like plagiarism can be spotted when errors show up in both works, these errors in genes create a strong case for common descent. What is significant is his argument for common descent is not an argument in favor of evolution. All fascinating stuff to think about.
September 19, 2007
An interesting try that's flawed by a logical fallacy called 'begging the question'. The author assumes the thing he's trying to prove and incorporates it into his arguement. Good data, bad science.
Lynn Hoffman, author of bang BANG
Lynn Hoffman, author of bang BANG
December 23, 2012
Once, and then twice I passed this book when I saw it in this little bookshop I frequent, lying on the philosophy shelf.
The third time I bought 'The Edge of Evolution'.
Behe's previous book 'Darwins Black Box' was paradigmatic in my thought, as it was in launching the whole intelligent design idea, so I figured I might as well read this one.
It rekindled an old love for biochemistry. The little machinery inside biological cells is just breathtakingly intricate and beautiful. I found myself just joyfully reading about the miracle that is life in its microscopic detail. For that alone I'd give it four stars.
And to be a bit more objective, I found Behe's main argument fairly convincing.
To sum up, he uses takes the best empirical evidence available for random mutation as a mechanism for evolution, and shows what it can and can't do. Which, according to Behe, isn't much, and hence, the edge of evolution. (and so the book should really be called 'the border of random mutation', but I guess that hasn't got the same ring to it..)
What struck me most is that the same thing has been written about in a Dutch book called 'degeneratie', which to the best of my knowledge (and google skills) hasn't been translated. 'Degeneratie' also builds on 'Darwins black box', and also seeks to establish boundaries to what random mutation as a mechanism to evolutionary change can do, with an answer in kind. (and it predates 'Edge' by almost ten years)
After the main argument Behe gets bogged down on the merit of 'design' as a scientific concept, and I suppose you have to devote some time to that with this subject. But I've seen that point being made better before. (see for instance Ratzsch's 'Nature, Design and Science')
And I felt the analogies were tedious at times. I can see biochemistry is complex, but so is matching an analogy to it and still understanding what you're actually talking about. A little less dumbing-down would've improved the intelligibility of the argument, to put it crudely.
Still, good read, fair argument.
The third time I bought 'The Edge of Evolution'.
Behe's previous book 'Darwins Black Box' was paradigmatic in my thought, as it was in launching the whole intelligent design idea, so I figured I might as well read this one.
It rekindled an old love for biochemistry. The little machinery inside biological cells is just breathtakingly intricate and beautiful. I found myself just joyfully reading about the miracle that is life in its microscopic detail. For that alone I'd give it four stars.
And to be a bit more objective, I found Behe's main argument fairly convincing.
To sum up, he uses takes the best empirical evidence available for random mutation as a mechanism for evolution, and shows what it can and can't do. Which, according to Behe, isn't much, and hence, the edge of evolution. (and so the book should really be called 'the border of random mutation', but I guess that hasn't got the same ring to it..)
What struck me most is that the same thing has been written about in a Dutch book called 'degeneratie', which to the best of my knowledge (and google skills) hasn't been translated. 'Degeneratie' also builds on 'Darwins black box', and also seeks to establish boundaries to what random mutation as a mechanism to evolutionary change can do, with an answer in kind. (and it predates 'Edge' by almost ten years)
After the main argument Behe gets bogged down on the merit of 'design' as a scientific concept, and I suppose you have to devote some time to that with this subject. But I've seen that point being made better before. (see for instance Ratzsch's 'Nature, Design and Science')
And I felt the analogies were tedious at times. I can see biochemistry is complex, but so is matching an analogy to it and still understanding what you're actually talking about. A little less dumbing-down would've improved the intelligibility of the argument, to put it crudely.
Still, good read, fair argument.
August 9, 2016
Take a standard deck of cards. Shuffle them thoroughly. Now record the exact order of the cards. Did you know that the odds of shuffling a deck of cards into that exact order are 1 in 8×10^67? There have only been 4×10^17 seconds since the Big Bang, meaning that in order for a deck to randomly be arranged in that specific order you would have had to shuffle the deck 2×10^50 times every second since the Big Bang till now. That's 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tries every second for the last 14 billion years. And yet, here it is. In that exact order. With such infinitesimal odds. It's a miracle.
If you can figure out why this argument doesn't work, you'll have figured out why the thesis of this book is merely an abuse of statistics aimed at people who won't know better.
If you can figure out why this argument doesn't work, you'll have figured out why the thesis of this book is merely an abuse of statistics aimed at people who won't know better.
March 26, 2011
After reading "Darwin's Black Box" and not liking it, I figured I'd give Behe another shot. I liked this book a lot more but was still disappointed. He spends the entire book trying to debunk evolution with implications of a designer and then at the end he tells us that it doesn't really matter anyhow. That we should just fill in the blank. He doesn't really bring us into his ideas of what/who a designer is let alone the idea of how. He struck again with illogical ideas, ill conceived analogies and the inability to provide a better alternative.
"There's every reason to trust our basic human insight that we live in a purposefully designed world" Michael Behe "The Edge of Evolution" p. 227
"There's every reason to trust our basic human insight that we live in a purposefully designed world" Michael Behe "The Edge of Evolution" p. 227
August 17, 2010
Amazon:
"With this book, Michael Behe shows that he is truly an independent thinker of the first order. He carefully examines the data of evolution, along the way making an argument for universal common descent that will make him no friends among young-earth creationists, and draws in new facts, especially the data on malaria, that have not been part of the public debate at all up to now. This book will take the intelligent design debate into new territory and represents a unique contribution to the longstanding question of philosophy: Can observation of the physical world guide our thinking about religious questions?"
"With this book, Michael Behe shows that he is truly an independent thinker of the first order. He carefully examines the data of evolution, along the way making an argument for universal common descent that will make him no friends among young-earth creationists, and draws in new facts, especially the data on malaria, that have not been part of the public debate at all up to now. This book will take the intelligent design debate into new territory and represents a unique contribution to the longstanding question of philosophy: Can observation of the physical world guide our thinking about religious questions?"
February 9, 2010
Another great book. Can random mutations account for the diversity of life on this planet? Science says no. Behe details why. Fantastic!
August 15, 2011
I’m happy to be done with The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. In examining the existence of life on Earth and the process of “Darwinian” evolution, Michael J. Behe attempts to make the case for Intelligent Design. The essence of his argument is that the complexities of the processes of life are mathematically not possible through “Darwinian” evolution. Therefore those processes must have been put there on purpose – thus “designed”.
He almost exclusively sticks to the processes (and their evolution through genetic mutations) at the cellular level, which is not really what I think of when I think of “Darwinian” evolution. Cell theory (1665) was around before Darwinian Theory (The Origin of Species: 1859), but the structure of DNA wasn’t known until 1953. To say that Darwinian evolution is about DNA mutations, especially in the minutia that Behe goes into, is a huge stretch. But I get it and can give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s not really about Darwinian Theory as Darwin proposed – it’s about Darwinian Theory as it has become with modern knowledge of the process and structure of DNA. I’ll give him a reluctant pass on that one.
Behe broke out Darwinian Theory into its three basic components: natural selection, common ancestry, and genetic mutation (now that we know mutation as Charles Darwin knew it boils down to genetic mutation). To his credit, right out of the gate Behe states that there’s no arguing with natural selection or common ancestry. They just don’t preclude the presence of intelligent design. In this book he is speaking of genetic mutation only. Fine, I’m with him so far. But he loses me very quickly.
It would take way too long to go over all the ways in which his conclusions are wrong, but here are some of the highlights:
• A huge portion of his argument focuses on the malaria protozoa (single celled organism) and to a lesser extent some of the human mutations of hemoglobin that potentially combat malaria (e.g., sickle cell). This is ridiculous. You can’t base a conclusion on the origins of life by looking at an infinitesimally small number of organisms. There are so many possible evolutionary paths that a single organism and the species that are affected by it can take that making any realistic conclusions from such a small window is patently ridiculous.
• He frequently refers to the idea that because malaria can’t mutate into something even more powerful, “Darwinian” evolution is flawed. For example, why can’t malaria mutate to be able to handle colder temperatures? After all there’s a fish that was able to evolve anti-freeze in its blood. Let me get this straight: the implication is that because some individual organism doesn’t evolve into every possible variation ever, there must be a master plan? That’s the most ridiculous leap in logic I’ve ever heard. That leap is not from one building to another, it’s a leap across oceans. There’s nothing in genetic theory that says all organisms will always mutate into something better. Extinct species would easily disprove that.
• He focuses most of his argument on very primitive organisms (malaria protozoa) that can only replicate through cell division. Presumably this is to show how the basic organic cell evolved. But when he does bring other, higher organisms into it (humans for example), he sticks to the mathematical proof he used for protozoa regarding variation through mutations only. The single largest advance that life on Earth has ever seen is the advent of sexual reproduction which allows for a myriad of new possibilities for variation and mutation to occur with much smaller populations. Completely ignored by Behe. This by itself is a huge warning flag that Behe is ignoring what’s inconvenient to his argument – what could be more obvious?
• The basis of his argument could probably be summed up on one point: the mathematics of probability in one or more mutations happening to produce some of the complex functions in a single-cell organism is so small that there’s no chance it could have taken place. The big huge gaping hole in this argument is that it depends on an assumption of the overall number of possible mutations that can happen. Whether talking about the of malaria or how specific functions of cellular life evolved, single cell life on Earth has been around for billions of years. You simply can’t assume that the rate of genetic mutations that occur in the last hundred, thousand, or million years is the same rate of mutation for billions of years. How were rates of mutation when the atmosphere and environment on Earth was absolutely nothing like it is today? How about at underwater hydrothermal vents where the temperature can vary between 2 and 400 degrees Celsius within a few meters? Unfortunately Behe has chosen to ignore, or worse – not consider, all such unknowns.
But the absolute worst thing he does is this: he holds the theory of evolution and genetic mutations to the highest standards of scientific proof, allowing zero room for “we don’t know yet” or “undetermined”. But once he makes the (erroneous) conclusion that genetic mutation cannot possibly account for how cells work, what does he conclude? Not “the possibilities or the origin of life are, scientifically speaking, yet to be determined”. Not “imagine the possibilities”. His conclusion: it must have been designed. While he keeps the definition of “intelligent design” suitably open-ended, he doesn’t apply one wit of logic or scientific standard to explain how he gets from “unknown” to “absolutely intelligent design”. There’s only one word for such blatant one-sided treatment: hypocrisy. There is no place for that in scientific reasoning – or religious faith for that matter.
Not stopping there, he puts salt in the wound by spending a portion of the book trying to tie theoretical physics and astrophysics principles to support his argument. The basic reasoning here brings up an idea he brought up on the genetics argument: the likelihood of life in the Universe is small – so humans are just lucky? Ironically he seems to be saying that it’s naive to think that we exist from pure chance because it’s unlikely, while his reasoning is that it’s so much more likely that life was designed – with no real evidence. Who’s being naive? (There’s also a huge logic problem in saying that our existence is unlikely therefore it could not have happened by chance – it’s a false argument for a bunch of statistical reasons.) Quite honestly at this point in the book it comes off as desperate.
Personally I think he purposefully uses solid science descriptions (on cellular function, natural selection, DNA, etc.) and obscure examples to make a convincing argument through confusion and ignorance.
On the plus side, I did get something out of his descriptions of cellular protein structure – it gave me thought models that were better than I had before. His process of breaking out Darwinian Theory into three distinct mini-theories was also beneficial (though not his I don’t think).
I should say that I personally believe life has some component of intelligent design. My education is steeped in science and (even though it is not my career) my daily thoughts are grounded in it and are ever-present. I’ve never had a problem with the juxtaposition between science and faith and find it surprising that they always seem to be falsely pitted against each other. This book doesn’t do that on purpose, which is part of why I thought it would be enjoyable. However, Behe’s blatant disregard for scientific reasoning blew it. Instead of providing a venue to show how faith and science are not really at odds, he ends up making the gulf seem bigger. He not only draws a wrong conclusion, he made me absolutely hate this book. Finishing it was a chore – I was constantly struggling not to literally argue back.
I made it through the first half of the book in the hopes of finding some interesting scientific thought on the evolution of life and where the currently unexplained gaps are. I made it through the second half of the book, through frustration and annoyance, in the hopes of being able to write this review to save other people from having to read it. If you have a basic scientific background you’ll probably see through his arguments and just be wasting your time. If you don’t have that background, you might think there’s validity in his argument and simply be deluded.
He almost exclusively sticks to the processes (and their evolution through genetic mutations) at the cellular level, which is not really what I think of when I think of “Darwinian” evolution. Cell theory (1665) was around before Darwinian Theory (The Origin of Species: 1859), but the structure of DNA wasn’t known until 1953. To say that Darwinian evolution is about DNA mutations, especially in the minutia that Behe goes into, is a huge stretch. But I get it and can give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s not really about Darwinian Theory as Darwin proposed – it’s about Darwinian Theory as it has become with modern knowledge of the process and structure of DNA. I’ll give him a reluctant pass on that one.
Behe broke out Darwinian Theory into its three basic components: natural selection, common ancestry, and genetic mutation (now that we know mutation as Charles Darwin knew it boils down to genetic mutation). To his credit, right out of the gate Behe states that there’s no arguing with natural selection or common ancestry. They just don’t preclude the presence of intelligent design. In this book he is speaking of genetic mutation only. Fine, I’m with him so far. But he loses me very quickly.
It would take way too long to go over all the ways in which his conclusions are wrong, but here are some of the highlights:
• A huge portion of his argument focuses on the malaria protozoa (single celled organism) and to a lesser extent some of the human mutations of hemoglobin that potentially combat malaria (e.g., sickle cell). This is ridiculous. You can’t base a conclusion on the origins of life by looking at an infinitesimally small number of organisms. There are so many possible evolutionary paths that a single organism and the species that are affected by it can take that making any realistic conclusions from such a small window is patently ridiculous.
• He frequently refers to the idea that because malaria can’t mutate into something even more powerful, “Darwinian” evolution is flawed. For example, why can’t malaria mutate to be able to handle colder temperatures? After all there’s a fish that was able to evolve anti-freeze in its blood. Let me get this straight: the implication is that because some individual organism doesn’t evolve into every possible variation ever, there must be a master plan? That’s the most ridiculous leap in logic I’ve ever heard. That leap is not from one building to another, it’s a leap across oceans. There’s nothing in genetic theory that says all organisms will always mutate into something better. Extinct species would easily disprove that.
• He focuses most of his argument on very primitive organisms (malaria protozoa) that can only replicate through cell division. Presumably this is to show how the basic organic cell evolved. But when he does bring other, higher organisms into it (humans for example), he sticks to the mathematical proof he used for protozoa regarding variation through mutations only. The single largest advance that life on Earth has ever seen is the advent of sexual reproduction which allows for a myriad of new possibilities for variation and mutation to occur with much smaller populations. Completely ignored by Behe. This by itself is a huge warning flag that Behe is ignoring what’s inconvenient to his argument – what could be more obvious?
• The basis of his argument could probably be summed up on one point: the mathematics of probability in one or more mutations happening to produce some of the complex functions in a single-cell organism is so small that there’s no chance it could have taken place. The big huge gaping hole in this argument is that it depends on an assumption of the overall number of possible mutations that can happen. Whether talking about the of malaria or how specific functions of cellular life evolved, single cell life on Earth has been around for billions of years. You simply can’t assume that the rate of genetic mutations that occur in the last hundred, thousand, or million years is the same rate of mutation for billions of years. How were rates of mutation when the atmosphere and environment on Earth was absolutely nothing like it is today? How about at underwater hydrothermal vents where the temperature can vary between 2 and 400 degrees Celsius within a few meters? Unfortunately Behe has chosen to ignore, or worse – not consider, all such unknowns.
But the absolute worst thing he does is this: he holds the theory of evolution and genetic mutations to the highest standards of scientific proof, allowing zero room for “we don’t know yet” or “undetermined”. But once he makes the (erroneous) conclusion that genetic mutation cannot possibly account for how cells work, what does he conclude? Not “the possibilities or the origin of life are, scientifically speaking, yet to be determined”. Not “imagine the possibilities”. His conclusion: it must have been designed. While he keeps the definition of “intelligent design” suitably open-ended, he doesn’t apply one wit of logic or scientific standard to explain how he gets from “unknown” to “absolutely intelligent design”. There’s only one word for such blatant one-sided treatment: hypocrisy. There is no place for that in scientific reasoning – or religious faith for that matter.
Not stopping there, he puts salt in the wound by spending a portion of the book trying to tie theoretical physics and astrophysics principles to support his argument. The basic reasoning here brings up an idea he brought up on the genetics argument: the likelihood of life in the Universe is small – so humans are just lucky? Ironically he seems to be saying that it’s naive to think that we exist from pure chance because it’s unlikely, while his reasoning is that it’s so much more likely that life was designed – with no real evidence. Who’s being naive? (There’s also a huge logic problem in saying that our existence is unlikely therefore it could not have happened by chance – it’s a false argument for a bunch of statistical reasons.) Quite honestly at this point in the book it comes off as desperate.
Personally I think he purposefully uses solid science descriptions (on cellular function, natural selection, DNA, etc.) and obscure examples to make a convincing argument through confusion and ignorance.
On the plus side, I did get something out of his descriptions of cellular protein structure – it gave me thought models that were better than I had before. His process of breaking out Darwinian Theory into three distinct mini-theories was also beneficial (though not his I don’t think).
I should say that I personally believe life has some component of intelligent design. My education is steeped in science and (even though it is not my career) my daily thoughts are grounded in it and are ever-present. I’ve never had a problem with the juxtaposition between science and faith and find it surprising that they always seem to be falsely pitted against each other. This book doesn’t do that on purpose, which is part of why I thought it would be enjoyable. However, Behe’s blatant disregard for scientific reasoning blew it. Instead of providing a venue to show how faith and science are not really at odds, he ends up making the gulf seem bigger. He not only draws a wrong conclusion, he made me absolutely hate this book. Finishing it was a chore – I was constantly struggling not to literally argue back.
I made it through the first half of the book in the hopes of finding some interesting scientific thought on the evolution of life and where the currently unexplained gaps are. I made it through the second half of the book, through frustration and annoyance, in the hopes of being able to write this review to save other people from having to read it. If you have a basic scientific background you’ll probably see through his arguments and just be wasting your time. If you don’t have that background, you might think there’s validity in his argument and simply be deluded.
March 7, 2010
This book is a wonderful read by a obviously intelligent and observant author. Admittedly some information is over my head regarding micro cellular processes and protein formation. However this book is written for both mass audiences and observant scientists who desire to increase their understanding of evolution. To the chagrin of a pro-darwinian evolutionist, Behe outlines the logical extent to which Darwinian evolution can be expected to take any organism. Demonstrating observations on the evolution of both Malaria and HIV he shows how random mutation is indeed random and cannot be expected to take multiple unbeneficial steps in one direction in order to attain a beneficial evolutionary result. In fact random mutation and natural selection can only be expected to make a beneficial change in 1-2 amino acids within the gene of a given protein or create up to two protein binding sites aiding protein formation. This is wonderful and amazing and in his view has created human defense against Malaria known as sickle cell, fish with anti-freeze in their blood and any number of other beneficial mutations. However asking random mutation to make more than a 1 or 2 step change in the DNA of an organism goes beyond the age of the earth in its requirement for organisms, even for Malaria or HIV which have billions of cells in each patient. He also cites gene control mechanisms that tell the DNA when to work and where can be affected by random mutation within reason. However this control mechanisms can say when and where but definitely do not explain how the cellular systems they are controlling got to be there in the first place. All that to say it is a fascinating book and a breathe of fresh air for anyone who doesn’t want to think they are a cosmic accident.
December 1, 2021
This is a good book overall by Behe; the author has many crucial and excellent points that need to be pondered over and considered. The two things that mar the book to me are the conjectured time periods (I do not buy into the old earth and universe theories); and second the author's insistent belief in Darwin's idea of common descent. As to the latter I agree with Jonathan Witt of the Discovery Institute in his article, "Don't Ask: Common Descent or Common Design?" in the Summer issue of SALVO. Witt states: "To say that similarities prove common descent ignores a logical possibility: that common features may instead be due to a common design strategy." (p. 42)
March 30, 2018
I am unable to assess the technical information provided in this book.
The four star ratings is purely due to the clarity of the information provided.
It does appear that Behe has a valid argument against the simplistic populist view of Neo-Darwinian synthesis ( ie starting with any organism selective pressures could evolve almost any other organism) but this doesn't seem fatal for the mechanism to explain why we do have the organism that we observe.
The four star ratings is purely due to the clarity of the information provided.
It does appear that Behe has a valid argument against the simplistic populist view of Neo-Darwinian synthesis ( ie starting with any organism selective pressures could evolve almost any other organism) but this doesn't seem fatal for the mechanism to explain why we do have the organism that we observe.
February 2, 2017
In the book, author posed some questions to challenge random mutation theory:
- Some forms must require at least two damaging non-beneficial gene mutation to constitute. In statistics term, it is improbable.
- Mutations led to resistance to artificial attack (biology, genetic, etc.) happens much more quickly than mutation led to resistance to natural obstacle (CCC hemoglobin), or even has not happened.
I was not satisfy with the quality of the book. Facts are not diverse, mainly focused in malaria disease, and frankly poorly presented, argument is repetitive and not adapted to each fact, as if author unconsciously shoved the intelligent design theory to each paragraph. Moreover, writing style is exuberantly excessive with uncanny descriptiveness. Hated to read on.
After reading the book, I have updated with other arguments to refute random mutation, or evolution in general, such as Cambrian Period biological boom. These arguments are, in nature, very interesting and trigger much contemplation on the scope and applicability of evolution framework component: selection, random mutation, common ancestry.
IMHO, applicability is far more important and forward-thinking than right or wrong. Mutation is indeed very objective, but when projecting with human endeavor and organization changes, which are sometime very subjective, can be intelligent designed at some micro-or-macro scope. What kind of intelligent, or what scope it must fall, is to be explored.
- Some forms must require at least two damaging non-beneficial gene mutation to constitute. In statistics term, it is improbable.
- Mutations led to resistance to artificial attack (biology, genetic, etc.) happens much more quickly than mutation led to resistance to natural obstacle (CCC hemoglobin), or even has not happened.
I was not satisfy with the quality of the book. Facts are not diverse, mainly focused in malaria disease, and frankly poorly presented, argument is repetitive and not adapted to each fact, as if author unconsciously shoved the intelligent design theory to each paragraph. Moreover, writing style is exuberantly excessive with uncanny descriptiveness. Hated to read on.
After reading the book, I have updated with other arguments to refute random mutation, or evolution in general, such as Cambrian Period biological boom. These arguments are, in nature, very interesting and trigger much contemplation on the scope and applicability of evolution framework component: selection, random mutation, common ancestry.
IMHO, applicability is far more important and forward-thinking than right or wrong. Mutation is indeed very objective, but when projecting with human endeavor and organization changes, which are sometime very subjective, can be intelligent designed at some micro-or-macro scope. What kind of intelligent, or what scope it must fall, is to be explored.
February 15, 2008
This book is an argument for intelligent design - the theory that the development of life on Earth has had supernatural or divine guidance. The author, Michael Behe, explains that what we call the theory of Evolution is really a composite of three theories. 1) that all life on Earth is related having developed from some primordial life form 2) that the individuals members of any living species acquire variations or mutations over time and 3) natural selection - that in the struggle for food, safety, and mates, the individuals of a species that are best adapted to their local conditions will survive and reproduce more than the others and in time their traits will dominate.
Behe accepts components 1 and 3 of Darwin's theory and uses his knowledge of biochemistry to argue that the sequences of mutations needed to develop a major new feature in an organism are so unlikely that even in the long time periods implied by Earth's geology they could not occur by chance. The only alternative then is that a Creator has been at work guiding the evolution of life on Earth.
He does a good job of explaining enough of biochemistry to follow his arguments without crushing you with details. A lot of his argument draws on his experience with the biochemistry related to the battle between humans and the malaria parasite.
Behe accepts components 1 and 3 of Darwin's theory and uses his knowledge of biochemistry to argue that the sequences of mutations needed to develop a major new feature in an organism are so unlikely that even in the long time periods implied by Earth's geology they could not occur by chance. The only alternative then is that a Creator has been at work guiding the evolution of life on Earth.
He does a good job of explaining enough of biochemistry to follow his arguments without crushing you with details. A lot of his argument draws on his experience with the biochemistry related to the battle between humans and the malaria parasite.
September 30, 2022
حافة التطور لدكتور مايكل بيهي يُعتبر الكتاب تكملة لكتابه الأول صندوق داروين الأسود و نقل النقاش من كلام حول فكرة ”التعقيد غير قابل للإختزال“ فينقاش في هذا الكتاب حافة فكرة الطفرات التي يرتكز عليها الإنتقاء الطبيعي و يشرح في ضوء ذلك مثالين و هي الملاريا و ذبابة الفاكهة كتاب يعتبر صغير الحجم نسبياً يحاول فيها التأكيد على نقطتان الأولى و هي أن رهان داروين ما زال قائماً و سيظل لفترة طويلة مصدر للإزعاج لمنظرين الداروينية و غير مستبعد تحوله لتهديد حقيقي مستقبلاً الشئ الأخرى هو موقفه من السلف المشترك حيث أنه كان كثيراً ما كان يؤكد على صحته و على أنه مؤمناً بذلك بطريقة تتجوز الحد المقبول به في أيضاح الفكرة و الغريبة أنه أحياناً يقول أنه لا يكترث بحول صحة الأمر من عدمه أو ظهور نتائج بحثية مستقبلية قد تنقض هذا التصور و يكأنه يريد أن يوصل رسالة ما من وراء هذا التكرار أكثر منها مناقشة الفكرة نفسها يختم الكتاب كتابهُ بحديث سريع عن fine tuning و كيف أن مبدأ الضبط و الأحكام يتاجلا بوضوح في الفيزياء و العلوم الطبيعية الأخرى و كيف أن البيولوجية هي جزء من هذا العلوم و ما يتطبق على كل يطبق على جزء فمسألة العشوائية العمياء التي يتبنها الأنتقاء الطبيعي هي فكرة هزلية إذا نظرنا للصورة بشكل ابعد و أن فكرة multiverse theory هي محولة تشغيب أخرى من بعض الشخصيات حول بداهيات الضبط و الإحكام الذان يقوما عليهما الحياة في هذه الكون .
July 23, 2013
Although evolutionists have soundly criticized Behe for challenging their certainty of evolution, Behe does make the point that living organisms have limits, determined by cellular processes, that prohibit a new genome from straying too far from it's starting point. Within those limits, however, we see all kinds of adaptation to environmental pressures, which can sometimes lead to loss of some functionality. Where multiple genetic changes occur, some are mildly beneficial, most are deleterious, but the overall effect may be an advantage in the new environment.
Although The Edge of Evolution has some contradictions, no one has yet seen a species mutate into a viable and considerably different organism, so that his critics are disingenuous in their approach.
Behe's discussion of common genetic defects between humans and certain primates is interesting because it highlights one of the problems with the Young Earth model of creation. Also, it poses possible mechanisms that may have been used during creation from one species to another.
Although The Edge of Evolution has some contradictions, no one has yet seen a species mutate into a viable and considerably different organism, so that his critics are disingenuous in their approach.
Behe's discussion of common genetic defects between humans and certain primates is interesting because it highlights one of the problems with the Young Earth model of creation. Also, it poses possible mechanisms that may have been used during creation from one species to another.
August 20, 2009
An exciting read, even for non-biologists. Having worked in a heavily malaria stricken environment (D.R. Congo), I enjoyed learning about how malaria works, how the body fights it, and why it is the best test bed for evolutionary theory to be played out. Behe demonstrates from Malaria that evolution has very distinct boundaries... micro evolution, sure... macro evolution, no way. Although this is a defense of the Christian worldview, this book is very scientific in nature and it's intent is not evangelism. It simply demonstrates from a biological perspective that evolution has limits. Even if you are not influenced by Behe's apologetic against evolution, it is very insightful in learning about malaria. Enjoy!
March 2, 2014
This book was significantly better than Behe's first one. The writing is better and the arguments are more sophisticated. I think the weakness to this work is that the thrust of it all hinges on studies in malaria. A more systematic treatment of the topic would have been appreciated. But on the other hand, being confined to one area allows Behe to focus and get into detail. All this aside, I think Behe is actually a very poor writer. His jokes are geeky and his analogies are crude. Of course this is irrelevant to the arguments.
September 23, 2014
Very readable, fascinating look at evolution in action. He explores the pressures created by the malaria parasite and the resulting adaptations in both humans and the parasite. With some elementary math applied to what is known about malaria he calculates how frequently traits are likely to appear as a result of Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms. Given a population size and mutation rate, a reasonable "edge of evolution" can be estimated.
May 26, 2009
This is a good read. Behe is clever and very readable. I sometimes got lost in the numbers, but I expected that. A better intelligent design book than Demski's The Design Revolution.
September 7, 2017
I found a logic problem in the very first chapter. I've read better books supporting Creationism. Decided to skip this one.
March 15, 2021
Read peer-reviewed research instead
January 14, 2018
I have read this book before, but this is a book that, like many classic intelligent design works [1] is well worth reading again. What makes this book, the sequel to the author's classic work Darwin's Black Box, worth reading closely and celebrating so much is the way that the author looks for the limits of blind evolution through looking the information from diseases like malaria and the HIV virus. In showing the extremely modest achievements that can be done without design based not on just-so stories and optimistic assumptions but on the sorts of mutations and their results that can be seen in the laboratory of the real world, the author demonstrates that a vast amount of phenomena in biology and cosmology simply cannot be accounted for by the Darwinian paradigm. Not only this, but the author manages to say this in a way that is not likely to appeal to those whose sensitive feelings are hurt by the truth: "Just as nineteenth century physics presumed light to be carried by the ether, so modern Darwinian biology postulates random mutation and natural selection constructed the sophisticated coherent machinery of the cell. Unfortunately, the inability to test the theory has hampered its critical appraisal and led to rampant speculation. Nonetheless, although we would certainly have wished otherwise, in just the past fifty years nature herself has ruthlessly conducted the biological equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiments. Call it the M-H (malaria-HIV) experiment. With a billion times the firepower of the puny labs that humans run, the M-H experiment has scoured the planet looking for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to build coherent biological machinery and has found absolutely nothing. Why no trace of the fabled blind watchmaker? The simplest explanation is that, like the ether, the blind watchmaker does not exist (163-164)."
In a bit less than 300 pages the author manages to take the reader on a tour of the calculus showing the narrow range of Darwinian processes in dealing with the difficulties of life as a human being or as a disease, showing that while mutations are really good at destroying function in cells that they are pitiful at creating anything coherent in its place. The author looks at the elements of Darwinism, separating out it s various components, and demonstrates with a certain amount of ruthlessness the fact that Darwinian evolutionary processes are destructive trench warfare that destroy function in the face of massive environmental threats and are not arms races of increasing complexity. The author shows the very narrow mathematical limits of Darwinism and give a thoughtful and fair-minded assessment of what Darwinism can do and what it cannot do based on a look at diverse situations including fish that can manufacture antifreeze to survive brutal Antarctic seas. The author then looks at various benchmarks and the two-binding sites rule that shows the limit of undirected natural processes. He deals with objections to the rather strict edge proposed in the book and looks at the creative capacity of design that answers the factual concerns of cosmology and biology before closing with four appendices that deal with various technical matters that may be beyond the capability of some of the book's readers.
What elevates this book from mere rhetoric to a powerful book is the way that it looks at the actual behavior of small and rapidly replicating organisms like flies and rats and diseases to look at the very strict limits of evolution as we see it in the actual world and not the vain imaginations of evolutionists. What we find is that while function can be reduced or eliminated in organisms in the face of existential threats like antibiotics, diseases, and poisons/pesticides, undirected processes have shown themselves unable to create new coherent function. There are definite and very narrow limits to the biological phenomena that one sees in natural selection and random mutations, and efforts on the part of evo-devo thinkers and others to appeal to modularity in organisms only demonstrates the elegance and effectiveness of design approaches similar to that found in programming languages and construction. This is a book that says a lot of things that are useful to read but that may be painful for some readers to accept. Such is the life, though.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
In a bit less than 300 pages the author manages to take the reader on a tour of the calculus showing the narrow range of Darwinian processes in dealing with the difficulties of life as a human being or as a disease, showing that while mutations are really good at destroying function in cells that they are pitiful at creating anything coherent in its place. The author looks at the elements of Darwinism, separating out it s various components, and demonstrates with a certain amount of ruthlessness the fact that Darwinian evolutionary processes are destructive trench warfare that destroy function in the face of massive environmental threats and are not arms races of increasing complexity. The author shows the very narrow mathematical limits of Darwinism and give a thoughtful and fair-minded assessment of what Darwinism can do and what it cannot do based on a look at diverse situations including fish that can manufacture antifreeze to survive brutal Antarctic seas. The author then looks at various benchmarks and the two-binding sites rule that shows the limit of undirected natural processes. He deals with objections to the rather strict edge proposed in the book and looks at the creative capacity of design that answers the factual concerns of cosmology and biology before closing with four appendices that deal with various technical matters that may be beyond the capability of some of the book's readers.
What elevates this book from mere rhetoric to a powerful book is the way that it looks at the actual behavior of small and rapidly replicating organisms like flies and rats and diseases to look at the very strict limits of evolution as we see it in the actual world and not the vain imaginations of evolutionists. What we find is that while function can be reduced or eliminated in organisms in the face of existential threats like antibiotics, diseases, and poisons/pesticides, undirected processes have shown themselves unable to create new coherent function. There are definite and very narrow limits to the biological phenomena that one sees in natural selection and random mutations, and efforts on the part of evo-devo thinkers and others to appeal to modularity in organisms only demonstrates the elegance and effectiveness of design approaches similar to that found in programming languages and construction. This is a book that says a lot of things that are useful to read but that may be painful for some readers to accept. Such is the life, though.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews