I just finished Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." Sort of. He gave both layman and scientific explanations of various topics and gave the reader permission to skip the detailed and footnoted scientific information if you don't have a science background. So . . . . I stuck with the "easy" to understand stuff.
Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. He's not a Christian. Or at least he wasn't when he wrote the book.
The two main things I took away from this book are:
1. There are a lot of scientists who have problems with Darwin's theory of evolution. I was surprised, because many people attempt to portray anyone who believes in intelligent design, or simply don't believe in Darwin's theory, to be religious nuts with no science background. That's simply not true. Among the people who have concerns about and/or have questioned Darwinism are English biologists Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, University of Georgia geneticist John McDonald, Australian evolutionary geneticist George Miklos, Jerry Coyne of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, University of California geneticist John Endler, and many others.
2. Evolutionists cannot scientifically explain the supposed gradual evolution of the plethora of irreducibly complex systems in the human body. An irreducibly complex system is "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." I like his mouse trap example, which helped me understand this. A mouse trap is irreducibly complex, because you must have all the parts working at the same time: platform, holding bar, catch, spring, and hammer. If any one part is missing, the trap doesn't work.
He argues that there are a number of irreducibly complex biological systems in our bodies, including the eye, cilium, "bacterial flagellum," and blood clotting, to name a few. Because all of the parts of these systems are dependent on each other, they could not have evolved, step by step. Makes sense to me.
He's critical of much of the scientific community for failing to spend enough time studying and explaining how Darwinism can account for irreducibly complex systems.
His conclusion is that irreducibly complex systems essentially have to be designed. They cannot evolve by some gradual process or an accident. He doesn't advocate the God theory or creationism, but says someone had to design these irreducibly complex systems. I agree.
I think this book should be required reading in sciences classes, regardless of whether the class focuses on Darwinism or intelligent design.
