This Day In History

Rate This
Article
[click here]

Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]

Michael J. Behe Ph.D.

Professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University, advocate of Intelligent Design, and originator of the term "Irreducible Complexity," which uses the bacterial motor and the mousetrap as examples.

See his webpage at http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html

Contents

• Books and Articles
• Irreducible Complexity
• Mousetrap Analogy
• Behe states that Irreducible Complexity doesn't disprove evolution
• Behe on the Age of the Universe and Evolution
• Why he doesn't speak at Scientific Conferences
• Behe Does Monty Python
• What do Behe's contemporaries say
• Does Behe consider Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory?
• Refutations to the Mousetrap Analogy
• Behe Answers His Critics
• Other Opinions
• Viewer Feedback - What did viewers think of this article?

Books and Articles:

• Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
• Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe
• Rationalism and reform.(Who Rules In Science? An Opinionated Guide To The Wars)(Book Review)
• Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life.(Book Review)
• THE FIFTH MIRACLE: THE SEARCH FOR THE ORIGIN AND MEANING OF LIFE.(Review)

Articles on the Web

• Darwin Under the Microscope
• Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry
• The God of Science: The Case for Intelligent Design
• Interview with Mike Behe, the mousetrap man

Irreducible Complexity:

Coined the Intelligent Design term "Irreducible Complexity."  He describes this in his book:

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. (Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution p. 39)

Irreducible Complexity is one of the main topics of the video
"Unlocking the Mystery of Life" (see review).

He used a mousetrap analogy as an example of this concept.

The mousetrap depends critically on the presence of all five it its components; if there were no spring, the mouse would not be pinned to the base; if there were no platform, the other pieces would fall apart; and so on. The function of the mousetrap requires all the pieces: you cannot catch a few mice with just a platform, add a spring and catch a few more mice, add a holding bar and catch a few more, All of the components have to be in place before any mice are caught. Thus the mousetrap is irreducibly complex. (Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool for Analyzing Biochemical Systems 1998: 178)

He also uses the bacterial flagellum (flagellar motor) as a biological example or Irreducible Complexity.  The video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" (see review) goes into detail about the bacterial flagellum.  For more information see Michael Behe and Intelligent Design on National Public Radio "Talk of the Nation"

One of the main problems with Irreducible Complexity is that it attempts to show the problem with evolution going in reverse (i.e. the removal of parts).  But this is a straw man debate since evolutionists don't claim this, and it's not part of the Theory of Evolution.  Even if he could prove Irreducible Complexity, evolution theory isn't dependent on the ability of organisms to evolve in reverse.

But, even Behe states that Irreducible Complexity doesn't disprove evolution.

He hadn’t meant to imply that irreducibly complex systems “by definition” cannot evolve gradually.  He also says, “I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof.”

Behe on the Age of the Universe and Evolution:

For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism--natural selection working on variation--might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.  (Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution p. 5)

I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent.  In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think evolution occurred, but was guided by God.*

I think that we are all descended from some single cell in the distant past but that that [sic] cell and later parts of life were intentionally produced as the result of intelligent activity. As a Christian, I say that intelligence is very likely to be God.*

Behe on why he doesn't speak at Scientific Conferences
Any member of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) has the right to present their ideas at the annual conference. When Behe was asked why he didn't exercise his right to use this forum, his response was:

I just don't think that large conferences are effective forums for presenting these ideas.

One would conclude he prefers the popular media and non-peer-reviewed forums.  See Cold Fusion for examples of others who choose these routes and why they shouldn't be trusted.

Behe Does Monty Python
Behe does a good impression of a classic Monty Python skit during his 2005 testimony in the Pennsylvania school board case [click here]

What do Behe's contemporaries at the Lehigh Department of Biological Sciences where Professor Behe works say about Intelligent Design.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Surely the Lehigh University faculty is familiar with the hugely controversial ideas of their colleague.  Yet apparently, not only has he not been able to convince any of them of the merits of his work, he hasn't even been able to convince any of them that Intelligent Design has a basis in science.  It's not unusual to have colleagues that disagree with you.  That's normal and expected in science.  But to not even be able to convince any of them that what you do qualifies as science?  That's unusual.

Obviously no one should advocate science by vote, and the fact that his colleagues don't agree with him isn't the point.  The point is that they don't even believe that what he does qualifies as science.

Science by vote is wrong.  However, the one thing that scientists do get to vote on is the definition of science and what distinguishes science from non-science.  This they have done. The overwhelming majority of scientists from all fields, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc., not just evolutionists, agree on this definition.

But what does Behe think?  Does he consider Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory?

Question: Now, you claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory.
Behe: Yes.
Question: But when you call it a scientific theory, you're NOT defining that term the same way that the National Academy of Sciences does.
Behe: Yes, that's correct.

 

Question: And actually you said at your deposition, I don't think intelligent design falls under this definition. Correct? (referring to the NAS definition)
Behe: Yeah, and that's after I said -- if I may see where in my deposition that is? I m sorry.

Even Behe doesn't believe that Intelligent Design fits the definition of scientific theory that is accepted by the vast majority of scientists around the world and across the various scientific fields such as physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. - not just biology.

Note: Just because something is not science, that doesn't mean it is wrong.  It is generally accepted that religion is not science.  Yet, many of the same scientists who agree that religion is not science are religious people who believe religion to be valid and true.

But what about the definition of science that Behe uses to qualify Intelligent Design as science?

Behe later goes on to say that under HIS definition of science, astrology also qualifies as science.  Does this mean that astrology should be taught as a valid scientific theory?

If Behe wants to make his own definitions for science and scientific theory, that's his prerogative.  But in order not to mislead people, he should be clear that when calls Intelligent Design a scientific theory that he is referring to his own special definition and not the definition accepted the world scientific community.   If he wants to make his own definition for colors where green is blue and white is red he can do that too.  But in order not to mislead people, he needs to be clear when he's using his special definition or the standard accepted definition.

Refutations to the Mousetrap Analogy

• http://www.fidelibus.com/mousetrap/
• http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap.html
• http://udel.edu/%7Emcdonald/mousetrap.html
• http://answers.org/newlook/behe2.html

Darwin's Black Box

• Darwin's Black Box - Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?
• Darwin's Black Box - Reviewed by Kenneth R. Miller
• Behe's Empty Box

Behe Answers His Critics

• In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade
• Michael J. Behe - Responses to Critics
• A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box

Other Opinions

• Michael Behe and Intelligent Design on National Public Radio "Talk of the Nation"
• Whose God? What Science?
• http://geology.about.com/od/wildgeotheories/a/aa_id_creation.htm?nl=1
• http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html
• http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
• http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact

Viewer Feedback

Add your Comments
Submit a Rebuttal
Submit an Article on another topic

2005-12-09 Anonymous wrote
Interesting, I'm not sure of the accuracy, Biased to Evolution

2006-02-10 Oliver, Theistic Evolutionist, wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced
As a catholic and evolutionary biologist I am distraught at the attempts of the religious community to rubbish scientist's (and thus humanity's) elucidation of the world. It is clear to me that the only way to preserve the values and message that was passed on to us through time by religion, is to acknowledge the validity and power of the scientific method. Thus the only way for religion and this important part of our civilization to survive is to keep our spiritual truth compatible with the physical truth that we can scientifically explore. If in ten years our kids in school understand evolution as well as biologists do now, and society keeps telling them that either you believe in God or evolution, of course they will become atheist. It seems that the ID movement is working hard to produce this outcome.
One of the pillars of religion is faith. ID proponents want to see themselves as proof of god's existence and thus they do not require faith. Real christians' faith is so strong that they do not require physical proof of god's existence. The only resistance to an expansion of our knowledge can come from christians who are insecure in the strengh of their faith.

2006-03-06 Anonymous, Young Earth Creationist, wrote
So So, Bogus, Biased to Evolution
This article had no discussion of the possibility of a "young" Earth. I know it's the minority opinion, but we happen to be right. If scientists could look at things from a perspective other than their failing theories, they would understand this world a lot better. If they opened up a Bible, they would find a wealth of scientific and historical info. Like YEC Dr. Russell Humphreys, who has the superior theory on the Earth's magnetic field, and Dr. John Baumgardner, who has the superior theory on "catastrophic plate tectonics".

epicidiot reply: This is an article about Michael Behe, and he doesn't believe in a young Earth.  The magnetic field YEC claim is discussed in detail at Earth's magnetic field.  Please see Age of the Earth, and Young Earth Evidence for a discussion of other young Earth issues.
If you know of proof of a young Earth, take a try at the Young Earth Challenge.

2006-05-12 Theistic Evolutionist wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced