Meeting Darwin's Wager (Part I)
How biochemist Michael Behe uses a mousetrap to challenge evolutionary theory.
by Tom Woodward | posted 4/28/1997 12:00AM

4 of 4

Commentary published in its September issue an astonishing 33-page section devoted to the wave of responses to Berlinski's article. Angry letters had poured in from the world's leading Darwinists, but other scholars praised the author for his rigorous analysis and the editors for their intellectual courage in publishing the piece. The author took 13 pages to respond, point-by-point, to each letter.
Berlinski, author of the recent award-winning book A Tour of the Calculus, says that skepticism regarding Darwinian orthodoxy has now exploded out of its evangelical Protestant ghetto and that revolution is in the air. He points to Behe's work as a turning point in this process: "Darwin's Black Box is simply an extraordinary piece of work that will come to be regarded as one of the most important books ever written about Darwinian theory. No one in the evolutionary camp can propose to defend Darwin without meeting the challenges that Behe has set out in his book—it's really quite compelling."
Instead of ignoring Behe, as many tried to do to Phillip Johnson, both the media and the scientific establishment are paying close attention to the feisty biochemist at Lehigh.
The treatment accorded Behe in the New York Times, "the paper of record," is one sign of this cultural shift. The first significant notice came on August 4, 1996, when Darwin's Black Box was honored by a review in the New York Times Book Review. Evolutionist James Shreeve expressed appreciation for Behe's knack of explaining natural wonders. In the end, Shreeve did not agree with Behe's intelligent design proposal, saying we should not jump the gun and say "God did it" but rather leave some mysteries for our grandchildren to work on. But the review conveyed Behe's thesis clearly:
He argues that the origin of intracellular processes underlying the foundation of life cannot be explained by natural selection or by any other mechanism based purely on chance. When examined with the powerful tools of modern biology, but not with its modern prejudices, life on a biochemical level can be a product … only of intelligent design. Coming from a practicing scientist … this proposition is close to heretical.
Even more noteworthy was the appearance of Behe's own article, "Darwin Under the Microscope," in the op/ed pages of the New York Times (Oct. 29, 1996). The steps leading to this began in mid-September when an editor of the Times startled Behe by asking if he would consider submitting an article explaining the main theses of his book.
First of three parts; (click here to read part 2)
Copyright © 1997 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.