- Oct 17, 2011
- 41,925
- 45,037
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
CUNY biology professor Nathan Lents originally reviewed the book for Science in 2019. Now he provides a longer discussion of the book in the Skeptical Inquirer.
Behe, Bias, And Bears (Oh My!)
Nathan H. Lents
Recently, I reviewed Behe’s latest book, Darwin Devolves, for Science, the top scientific research journal in the United States (Lents et al. 2019). Behe argues that unguided random mutations serve primarily to damage genes and that doing so is occasionally good for the organism, leading to adaptation through natural selection of these damaging-but-advantageous mutations. Thus, Behe accepts that microevolution through random mutation can diversify organisms into species and genera—and perhaps families—but that something more is needed for large-scale evolutionary transitions.
Behe accepts the true age of the earth and admits that the evidence for the common ancestry of all life, including humans, is overwhelming. He sees a gap in evolutionary theory, however, in explaining the emergence of new kinds of organisms and concludes that it must require the intervention of the designer in some way. He stops short of providing evidence for the intervention and instead presents ID as the default position left standing after he shows how the unguided forces of evolution are insufficient for accounting for the origins and diversity of life.
But Behe does not show that. Darwin Devolves is mostly dedicated to explaining, often in great detail, how some high-profile examples of evolutionary research actually favor his view, rather than the interpretation of the scientists who did the work. As I will show, his discussion of every single example is misleading, sometimes egregiously so, insofar as he exaggerates the evidence that supports his view and ignores or dismisses the evidence that doesn’t. But even more damning is his near-complete omission of any discussion of the molecular and evolutionary forces that are responsible for the very phenomena he focuses on.
Behe, Bias, And Bears (Oh My!)
Nathan H. Lents
Recently, I reviewed Behe’s latest book, Darwin Devolves, for Science, the top scientific research journal in the United States (Lents et al. 2019). Behe argues that unguided random mutations serve primarily to damage genes and that doing so is occasionally good for the organism, leading to adaptation through natural selection of these damaging-but-advantageous mutations. Thus, Behe accepts that microevolution through random mutation can diversify organisms into species and genera—and perhaps families—but that something more is needed for large-scale evolutionary transitions.
Behe accepts the true age of the earth and admits that the evidence for the common ancestry of all life, including humans, is overwhelming. He sees a gap in evolutionary theory, however, in explaining the emergence of new kinds of organisms and concludes that it must require the intervention of the designer in some way. He stops short of providing evidence for the intervention and instead presents ID as the default position left standing after he shows how the unguided forces of evolution are insufficient for accounting for the origins and diversity of life.
But Behe does not show that. Darwin Devolves is mostly dedicated to explaining, often in great detail, how some high-profile examples of evolutionary research actually favor his view, rather than the interpretation of the scientists who did the work. As I will show, his discussion of every single example is misleading, sometimes egregiously so, insofar as he exaggerates the evidence that supports his view and ignores or dismisses the evidence that doesn’t. But even more damning is his near-complete omission of any discussion of the molecular and evolutionary forces that are responsible for the very phenomena he focuses on.
