All Comments for: At Origins' Margins | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > March (Web-only)

Christianity Today, March (Web-only), 2008 |

Review

At Origins' Margins

Michael Behe wonders how much Darwinism can really explain.

Stephen H. Webb | posted 3/27/2008 08:39AM

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
By Michael Behe
Free Press, 2007 (also available in audio, paperback available in June)

Would an infinite number of Darwinians, working at ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 72 comments.

Page: 1 2 3

Show All

David vun Kannon, FCD

Posted: April 07, 2008 1:02 PM


Webb leads off with a misleading half-quote. Why does a Christian publication accept this kind of shoddy writing? The author's own prejudices make anything written by Behe or about Behe of secondary importance. Try taking the high road of seeing God's glory in the world, revealed in ever more detail by science.

Alt	Posted: March 31, 2008 10:57 PM


Christianity Today Poll(Alt.) Shud the world interfere if those negators below be in trouble? Should world leaders protest China's hosting the 2008 Olympics? No, the Olympic Games aren't about reforming host countries. 23% No, China seems to be improving and shouldn't be discouraged. 5% No (other) 7%

Jafar

Posted: March 31, 2008 2:10 PM

Mr. Webb seems to fall into the Strobel-esque trap, selectively quoting a few individuals in a given field, and conflating their status to make it seem as though they in fact are legitimate opposition. The trap is further identified by there being no direct quotations from actual pro-science evolutionary biologists. Virtually all individuals who question the mechanisms of natural selection and gene mutations do not have an adequate understanding of evolutionary theory. Mutation rates HAVE been proven to support evolution. There ARE plentiful mechanisms by which genetic information increases. There is NO distinction between micro and macroevolution. Intelligent Design, and it's ancestor, Creationism, does a disservice both to religion and science.

george

Posted: March 31, 2008 3:57 AM


The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University where Michael Behe is a professor, has a statement on their website about Behe. They said "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."

Bad	Posted: March 30, 2008 10:47 AM

John, your coin flipping analogy is flawed. The point of evolution is that you do not need to actually flip 50 heads in a row when you can save strings of heads and reject any intervening tails until you get your straight 50. You are also a demonstration of how misinformed people become after reading these arguments. Dinosaurs are not said to have evolved "into" birds: rather birds are a sub-group within the dinosaur lineage: the reason this lineage is considered so sound is that birds share the unique groups of traits that distinguish dinosaurs from all other life on earth. Nor is there any sensible argument to be made to distinguish ordinary mutations from "large information-increasing" ones. ALL mutations are potentially information increasing: but this is not an objective quality of a given mutation, but rather a factor of its context. Pretty much any time a layperson starts talking about "increasing information" in biology being a problem, it's sure that they are confused.

Paul Julich

Posted: March 29, 2008 4:55 PM

Despite the disdain which evolutionists have for any argument against creation through random events, Behe has opened some important issues for discussion. Science is not about "majority opinion of scientists", it should address truth. The assumption of creation through random events runs into difficulties when the reality of time and space is considered. It is time to address "evolution" for what it is - a religion. The evolutionists accuse Christians of having a "God of the gaps". It seems that evolutionists cover every argument of gaps with "random events over a long, long, long, .... time"

Eugene M. Wiese

Posted: March 29, 2008 12:17 PM

The creation of the universe, or any other idea of its beginning is a matter of faith, not logic. My father had a reply to all those who tried to debate this subject: "Were you there, friend?" I believe the first verse of Genesis entirely. I have no doubts about that statement. But if you wish to push me to rationalize that faith, I note that there is nothing that contradicts that statement. For the rest of the story, I leave it in God's hands. He knows much more about creation and science and all the rest of it than I ever will. I taught my children to believe. But all of them like my father's question when asked to discourse on creation, intelligent design, and all the rest. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding.

Anonymous

Posted: March 28, 2008 4:19 PM


There are no dogma's in Darwinism - there ARE dogma's in religion. . . . Hopefully, over time we can rid ourselves of these religions that cannot agree but yet all believe there is one god. So obviously ludicrous that they cannot see it. Not only dogmatic, but totalitarian. A Darwinian, I presume.

Sam	Posted: March 28, 2008 3:43 PM

To deejay: Science *does* use theories to shape data. In the simplest form, a scientist will pick their experiments based on how they think what they're studying works. And they will tend to ignore data that does not fit into their current theories. I would refer you to Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for a more detailed analysis of this issue. However, I'm astonished that people calling themselves Christian would focus on Darwinists as the only scientists who are trying to undermine biblical truth. After all, NASA and other bodies keep sending satellites up into what they claim is near vacuum when we all know from Genesis 1:6-8 that once you get beyond the dome of the sky, you run into water.

Glenn L. Reist

Posted: March 28, 2008 3:43 PM


As an engineer by vocation, now retired, I learned in university as a young aspiring engineer that, "Design demands a Designer". Fifty years plus in the field of engineering, design and maintenance, has confirmed it.

Frank J

Posted: March 28, 2008 3:21 PM

@John. I gave the review 3 stars. Adding to Christopher’s comments: it is Behe who keeps distracting himself from the only claim he ever made that has potential as science (an intriguing front loading hypothesis), and has emphasized arguments that, even if correct are nothing but worthless arguments from incredulity. He has found no more design than Darwin did, and even admitted under oath that the designer he believes to have detected (which all IDers admit is not necessarily God) may even be deceased. Behe’s arguments have been dealt with in a serious manner which space prohibits here.

Christopher Letzelter

Posted: March 28, 2008 2:48 PM

@ John: " Behe's point may be akin to flipping a coin a certain number of times. You may often get the coin to land "heads" 4 or 5 times in a row (small mutations), but landing on heads 50 times in a row is almost impossible (large, information-increasing mutations, like dinosaurs evolving into birds). That's the main point, and I have yet to see someone deal with it in a serious manner here." John, evolution isn't akin to flipping a coin 50 times to get heads each time. It's like flipping 10 coins 5 times each; once a head is landed, or let's say landed twice in a row, that is "set in place" and not flipped again. This is equivalent to a non-harmful mutation being passed on to descendants. Thus, after only a few flips of each coin you end up with a whole set of successful "heads". This is a very simplistic analogy, but represents the way evolution proceeds rather than the "50 heads in a row" fallacy.

John	Posted: March 28, 2008 2:04 PM

Behe uses evidence to support his arguments for intelligent design. It's his critics who distract from the main issues and point out the tiniest flaws, only to think they have falsified his entire argument. And that's the kind of inexcusable behavior I have seen in the quickly posted, unfair 1-star reviews of this insightful article, like wolves pouncing on a wounded animal. The author is simplifying things a bit, but so far it seems his overall arguments are rock-solid, and all you people have done is gripe about minor things or distract us from the more damning points. Behe's point may be akin to flipping a coin a certain number of times. You may often get the coin to land "heads" 4 or 5 times in a row (small mutations), but landing on heads 50 times in a row is almost impossible (large, information-increasing mutations, like dinosaurs evolving into birds). That's the main point, and I have yet to see someone deal with it in a serious manner here.

Mike	Posted: March 28, 2008 1:13 PM

"... nothing demonstrated to be true by evidence can be wrong, even if it contradicts what we expect to see. " But there's another way of looking at it. We are not the pinicle of human development. Empirical evidence has to be interpreted to reach a conclusion, and we may not have the tools yet to properly interpreted all things. Humility toward our powers doesn't mean that we then turn around and accept another interpretation that a thorough and truthful examination would show to be incorrect. Creation science is NOT the same thing as creationism. You can be a creationist, admit that the creation science propaganda campaign is disingenuous, but believe that we simply do not know how this inferior human creation called science relates to divine revelation. Science changes, and does not produce a God's eye view. To insist that an "alternative science", rejected by the scientific community, is the REAL truth is hubris.

Tim S.

Posted: March 28, 2008 1:08 PM

Charles Cherry, there is a very simple reason why a professor of theology might not be the best choice to review a book on biology. It is this: If your sole source of biological knowledge derives from popular literature aimed at a general lay audience, how do you know you are getting the full picture? Even the best popular-science books leave out a vast amount of scientific detail, toiled and sweated over by numerous hardworking researchers. The trick is in reducing technical detail while still presenting a whole, balanced picture. Compare this 'review' to any average book review in the journal Nature; there, reviewers are almost always from the same discipline, and subject the book to criticism based on what it doesn't have, as well as what it does have. And in the case of Behe, what he always leaves out is a vast library of scientific data that disproves his main thesis. He is simply a liar and anyone who takes Behe at his word, without any independent knowledge, WILL be misled.

charles alexander

Posted: March 28, 2008 12:27 PM

It would help spiritually I think if all of the marvelous creation stories (and there are so many) from every major religion should be taught (or, at least discussed in class) as to how they, too, show that Intelligent Design is just not something that's based on the Bible and Christianity but is part of the Universal Reaching out to Cosmic Understanding (which, when it comes down to it really) is what Darwinism is seeking in its own way to clarify from a scientific perspective. My question is, Why have so many creation stories been passed over? In fact, Genesis owes much to the Babylonian mytholgies.

Rev. BigDumbChimp

Posted: March 28, 2008 11:15 AM


I suggest that readers of this review take some time to educate themselves on the strength of the Theory of Evolution and the weight it holds in the scientific community. If one honestly does so they will find that Behe and his collaborators' opinions are sorely lacking the research and evidence to back them.

deejay

Posted: March 28, 2008 9:24 AM

I have to give Professor Webb credit for getting one thing correct, namely his description of Behe's concept of irreducible complexity as "carrion." The idea was indeed stone dead on arrival, dead for over 130 years. Scientists absolutely examined Behe's arguments on his terms, and found them sadly wanting. As for Behe's motives, well of course they are worth examining. He is not interested in persuading fellow scientists with original, peer-reviewed scientific research; instead he prefers to assuage fellow travelers like Professor Webb with books written for a lay audience. Until Professor Webb grasps the simple concept that science uses data to shape theories, rather than the other way around, his understanding (and his analysis) of the issues in play here will be woefully inadequate.

Huey Freeman

Posted: March 28, 2008 9:18 AM

As a Christian, I find it appalling that so many of us continue to glorify people like Behe, who prey on the ignorance that most of us have about science. The leaders of the Christian community should be speaking out against such men and denouncing them, but instead they are putting them up on pedestals, while scientists who spend their entire lives doing nothing but examining evidence and trying to find answers... they are ridiculed, insulted, and associated with deviltry. Martin Luther said "The greatest enemy of faith is reason." Apparently, most of my Christian brothers and sisters believe that. I don't. I believe that we have minds for a reason, and that nothing demonstrated to be true by evidence can be wrong, even if it contradicts what we expect to see.

Mike	Posted: March 28, 2008 8:56 AM

"Tim Posted: March 28, 2008 8:07 AM "It seems to be a word used only by a minority who feel that evolution threatens their religious belief, and therefore must be discredited by any means necessary." That is a very unfair assessment of Behe, and an ad hominem besides. I think it is overwhelmingly clear that he (Behe) does not base his position upon a literalist perspective of the book of Genesis. I find it very disingenuous on the part of those that this sort of faulty stereotype around. " Not an answer to my question, but an excellent case in point by what I mean by "discredited by any means necessary". Perhaps Tim was confusing my comment with someone else's? If Professor Webb isn't available to answer my question perhaps Tim can? How do you define Darwinist?

Tim	Posted: March 28, 2008 8:07 AM

"It seems to be a word used only by a minority who feel that evolution threatens their religious belief, and therefore must be discredited by any means necessary." That is a very unfair assessment of Behe, and an ad hominem besides. I think it is overwhelmingly clear that he (Behe) does not base his position upon a literalist perspective of the book of Genesis. I find it very disingenuous on the part of those that this sort of faulty stereotype around.

TomS	Posted: March 28, 2008 7:45 AM

Your reviewer is obviously not only unaware of the relevant science, and about Behe's views on the subject, but even doesn't know that many creationists accept the reality that species do arise. For example, the "Answers in Genesis" website has an article titled "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use", and one of those arguments is "“No new species have been produced.” Of that argument, this creationist web site says, "This is not true—new species have been observed to form."

Frank J

Posted: March 28, 2008 6:11 AM

Of the many favorable reviews of Behe’s works that I have read, yours is the first that gives me hope that you might correct its mistakes. To your credit you acknowledge that, whether or not Behe’s “weaknesses” of evolution are supportable (they are not), he is one of the few anti-evolution activists who has made it clear that any potential alternative based on independent origins of “kinds” and/or alternate chronology of biological history are thoroughly falsified by the evidence. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to read and review “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller, which answers the misconceptions in Behe’s earlier book. Dr. Miller, is a cell biologist, a Christian, and long-time critic of ID and creationism. Miller and others (including many Christians) have also thoroughly refuted the misconceptions in “Edge of Evolution.” Since anti-evolutionists like to demand “equal time,” it would behoove you to practice what they preach.

Cedric Katesby

Posted: March 28, 2008 3:10 AM


"And why is a professor of philosophy not entitled to review a book on molecular biology?" Why is a dentist not entitled to review a book on dendrochronology? (Hmmm. Tough one that.)

DavidK

Posted: March 27, 2008 9:53 PM

From Stephen Webb's we have in his own words: "Hi, I'm a conservative Christian theologian and ... that makes me ... a Malagasy Giant Jumping Rat in a New Jersey Zoo," and then he goes on to say, "Being a rare bird ... has sharpened my appetite for ... fashions and fads." Well, Mr. Webb, how does it feel to be quote-mined? That's exactly what your creationist buddies do to real scientists, jumble their words and take their words out of context. If you really seek the truth, then you'd spend some time investigating the claims of these frauds whom you appear to laud, e.g., Behe et. Al. Actually learn something about evolution rather than bury your head in the sand. These creationsits possess zero intellectual credibility, integrity, or honesty, they know no shame, and truth to them has nothing to do with reality.

Page: 1 2 3

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment