4 of 4

Behe had just begun reading Darwin on Trial and was furious with what he calls a "profoundly anti-intellectual" attitude toward Johnson's work. Behe sent in a wittily barbed reply to Science, which they printed in a subsequent issue. His letter has become a tiny classic in the literature of skeptics of Darwinism, and it immediately brought Behe to the attention of the design movement.

In late 1991, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), a Dallas think tank, began organizing a symposium around Johnson's new book, to be held in March 1992. The idea was to invite five Darwinists and five proponents of intelligent design to debate the central thesis of Darwin on Trial—namely, that Darwinism is fundamentally grounded in philosophical preference, not scientific inference. Behe accepted FTE's invitation to join the intelligent design side, yet he admits that he entered the conference room at Southern Methodist University in Dallas with "some trepidation." Says Behe, "I just didn't know what to expect, nor did the Darwinists. Nothing like this had ever been attempted at a high academic level."

Right away the apprehensions of Behe and the others melted, and three days later all 11 participants left Dallas saying that the symposium was one of the best they had ever attended in their aca-demic careers. "There were no conversions on either side," recalls Behe, "but a genuine spirit of camaraderie and mutual acceptance grew among us. It was one of the highlights of my life."

The proceedings, published under the title Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?, were hailed as a scientific milestone in the renowned journal Quarterly Review of Biology. The volume contains a debate between Phillip Johnson and Darwinist philosopher of science Michael Ruse, along with the ten papers that were presented at the conference. Each paper is followed by a published reply by one of the participants on the other side of the issue.

Many observers described Behe's paper, on the isolated nature of protein families, as a "scientific bombshell." Using statistical and biochemical analysis, Behe proposed that the informational structure of proteins points to an intelligent designer, just as a book's letters must be formed in correct order by an author to produce coherent text. Yet what many recall as Behe's high point was his scintillating reply to an impressive Darwinist paper dealing with the immune system. The polite but scientifically high-octane contributions of Behe were a highlight of the symposium.

A year later the Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars met at Pajaro Dunes on the California coast. Here, Behe presented for the first time the seed thoughts that had been brewing in his mind for a year—the idea of "irreducibly complex" molecular machinery.

Once Behe had signed a contract with the Free Press, he proceeded to tap out the book's text on his computer. Behe stumbled onto a major surprise during his final stages of research, as he began surveying college biology texts and technical journals: he previously had no idea how many Darwinian explanations for complex systems would turn up in the literature. He suspected that such proposed explanations would be few and far between, but what he found was far more eloquent: a total, systematic absence of any attempts. His excitement grew month by month as his search confirmed the universal silence on the topic.

Second of three parts; (click here to read part 3)

Copyright © 1997 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

first page |  4 of 4

share this page

April 28 1997, Vol. 41, No. 5