1 of 6
Richard Dawkins famously asserted that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Prior to Darwin, all an atheist could do was to repeat with Hume that in an infinite amount of time anything is possible, including the complex design we see in nature. The Edge of Evolution makes it much more difficult for an atheist to find fulfillment in Darwin.
|
|
Michael Behe's new book begins by distinguishing three issues that are commonly subsumed under the banner of "Darwinism." One is common descent. A second is natural selection. And the third is random mutation. Behe argues that though there is very strong evidence for common descent, and though natural selection certainly has an important place in the biological explanation of organic diversity, random mutations by themselves cannot explain the molecular foundation of life on earth. It is hard to think of a group in the current controversy over evolution that will not be angered by something Behe writes. This is good; no one can legitimately dismiss The Edge of Evolution as propaganda.
The subtitle of Behe's book is "The Search for the Limits of Darwinism." Again, Behe's conclusion is not that evolution by means of natural selection is a myth, but only that its domain is limited. Of course, almost everyone will grant that "micro-evolution" occurs. Yes, moths gain or lose spots, and finches evolve new and improved beaks. But macro-evolution—turning a mouse into a whale—Never! Or so many creationists say.
Behe disagrees: "Evolution from a common ancestor, via changes in the DNA, is very well supported." After summing up the argument from the genetic similarity of all life, Behe writes that "It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans." And again, "Let's acknowledge that genetics has yielded yet more terrific (and totally unanticipated) evidence of common descent." Finally (though many more examples could be cited), "The purposeful design of life is also fully compatible with the idea of universal common descent, one important facet of Darwin's theory" [emphasis added]. Behe is quite clear that he has no objection to the idea that species as distinct as mice and whales evolved from common ancestors.
Behe would also be quite sympathetic to Darwin's suggestion that perhaps life was "originally breathed by a Creator into a few forms or into one." We shouldn't forget that Darwin never claimed to have provided a scientific explanation of life's origin. Instead his great insight was to demonstrate observationally how the origin of different species can be traced back to just a few primitive "life forms." Behe would agree: if it's alive and if it's big enough to be seen by the human eye, then it evolved.
And finally, Behe agrees with Darwin that "it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by a Creator that the production and extinction of past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." Or, as Behe puts it, "Those who worry about 'interference' should relax. The purposeful design of life to any degree is easily compatible with the idea that, after its initiation, the universe unfolded exclusively by the intended playing out of natural laws."
What Behe will not countenance is the "just-so stories" and question-begging mathematical models of someone like Richard Dawkins. Dawkins' argument goes like this: There are countless examples in nature where the appearance of design is overwhelming. And while anything is possible given enough time, atheism is no longer dependent on philosophers' hand waving. After Darwin, nature's complex "designs" are fully explainable in terms of natural selection. The problem is that natural selection is typically misunderstood. Most non-scientists think about evolution in terms of chance. Yet nothing could be further from the truth, says Dawkins. Nothing as complex as a human eye could evolve by mere chance except in some vacuous philosophical sense. Darwin's theory is not powered by chance selection; it's powered by cumulative selection.
share this page
RSS Feed
