In Article <55ta2t$vtn at fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>, inpri at lehigh.edu (Alan
>Just out of curiosity, has anyone read the book, "Darwin's Black Box: The
>Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," by Lehigh University professor Michael
>Behe? It is a convincing challenge to the theory of Darwinian evolution.
I haven't read the book, but I did here Behe propounding his theories on CBC
radio a couple months ago.
His arguments boiled down to (I paraphrase) "I can not understand how it
could work, so it can't work". I find this argument by personal
incomprehension to be less than compelling.
He also came up with the long discredited argument that the eye could
not have evolved, in principle. His obvious failure to read the literature
on the topic, and the fact that his best arguments (or at least the ones he
chose to discuss in public) are old and discredited doesn't dispose me to
The review in Nature was also quite scathing, and hit the same points.
All in all, if that kind of argument is the most convincing challenge to
evolution, then I think Darwin is still secure.
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9
wgallin at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca