Michael Behe

Michael J. Behe
Born	(1952-01-18) January 18, 1952 Altoona, Pennsylvania
Occupation	Professor
Known for	Irreducible complexity
Children	9

Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and advocate of the theory of intelligent design. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He advocates the hypothesis that some structures are too complex at the biochemical level to be adequately explained as a result of the Darwinian theory of evolution. This hypothesis is known as irreducible complexity.

Prof. Behe's hypothesis about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures is contested by many in scientific community, although it does appear to be gaining acceptance among scientists in those cutting-edge fields most directly involved in the recent scientific challenges to various aspects of evolutionary theory. Despite the growing rift among scientists, the Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University published a much-critized position statement which is reproduced in full below. Behe's hypothesis of intelligent design has been rejected by the many scientists and even characterized as pseudoscience by certain members of the scientific community with a strong atheistic bias.

Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.

Academics

Behe grew up in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He got his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry. As a child, Prof. Behe attended grade school at St. Margaret Mary's Parochial School and later graduated from Bishop McDevitt High School. Due to Behe's views challenging the scientific viability of the theory of evolution in light of recent advances in biochemistry, molecular biology and genetics, Lehigh University has come under strong pressure from several tenured scientists and other supporters of evolutionism to exhibit the following disclaimer on its website:

While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. 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.

Challenges to Evolution: Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design

Main articles: Irreducible complexity and Intelligent design

Prof. Behe once fully accepted the theory of evolution, but after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, came to question the scientific basis for evolution. Later, Behe began to evaluate evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he argues could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believes to be the most plausible alternative explanation for such complex structures.

After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory. Some creationists and members of the scientific community strongly agreed with the dissenting justices in Edwards v. Aguillard who argued in their sharply worded dissenting opinion that it is an important secular goal to protect "academic freedom" and hence to preserve "students' freedom from indoctrination", in this case their freedom "to decide for themselves how life began, based upon a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence." The books of lawyer Phillip E. Johnson on the theory of intelligent design, which strayed away from direct statements about a Young Earth and stuck to criticisms of evolutionary theory and purported biased materialist science, provided a model for continuing the debate. Through his efforts and those of his colleagues a new organization devoted to the theory of intelligent design sprung up, the Discovery Institute. In 1996 Prof. Behe became a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (later renamed the Center for Science and Culture) dedicated to promoting the theory of intelligent design.

By this time, Behe had published his ideas on irreducible complexity in his first book Darwin's Black Box, which was received skeptically by many in the scientific community, and rejected outright by scientist with a overt atheistic bias. The most fundamentalist of the atheistic scientists even asserted that Behe's hypothesis, research and examples were based only on a refined form of "argument from ignorance", rather than any demonstration of the actual impossibility of evolution by natural processes. Furthermore, they believed that Behe aimed the publication of this book at the general public, gaining maximum publicity while avoiding peer-review from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his statements, contrary to normal interpretations of the scientific method. This charge has been roundly disputed and rejected by Behe and numerous other scientists, even some who do not subscribe to his hypothesis.

Nevertheless, Behe's credentials as a highly respected biochemist have given the proponents of the scientific theory of intelligent design another key ally. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution.

Unlike William A. Dembski and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species, including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.

In a November 8, 1996 interview avowed atheist Richard Dawkins said of Behe:

"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)...point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is...maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder." Richard Dawkins on Evolution and Religion

In the March/February 1997 issue of Boston Review, Prof. Russell F. Doolittle wrote a rebuttal to the statements about irreducibly complexity of certain systems, in particular he mentioned the issue of the blood clotting in his "A Delicate Balance". [1]. Later on, in 2003, Doolittle's lab published a paper in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, which purported to demonstrate that the pufferfish lacks at least three blood clotting factors, and still is a workable system. This Doolittle asserted defeats a key component of the irreducible complexity hypothesis as laid out in Behe's original book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex'.

Behe and Snoke (2004)

Behe published a paper, together with Prof. David Snoke, a physicist and former fellow at the Max Planck Institute in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Protein Science, which he states supports irreducible complexity, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, the paper does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of some of the reviewers. The Discovery Institute lists it as one of the "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design".

Michael Lynch authored a response, to which Behe and Snoke responded. Protein Science discussed the papers in an editorial.

Numerous scientists have attempted to disprove the work, pointing out that not only can it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe & Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy. Some of the critics have also noted that the Discovery Institute continues to assert the paper as 'published evidence for design', despite it offering no design theory or attempting to model the design process, and therefore not providing an alternative to evolution.

Many of aspects of Behe's hypothesis have been addressed by biologist Kenneth Miller in his book, Finding Darwin's God. Behe has subsequently addressed Miller's points in an essay.

Popular writing

Behe has written editorial features in the Boston Review, American Spectator, and The New York Times. Behe, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates William A. Dembski and David Berlinski, tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which she terms "Darwinism". In the book, Coulter thanks Behe, Dembski and Berlinski fulsomely for their assistance with this section.

Dover testimony

Outside the scientific community, there are those who wish to aggressively combat any possibility of a scientific debunking of evolution. Such proponents of Darwinism are usually not well-equipped to challenge Prof. Behe's hypothesis on irreducible complexity, or the theory of Intelligent Design more generally, with credible scientific research or with scientific methods of argumentation, therefore they have tended to heavily rely on various judicial pronouncments in high-profile court battles between creationists and atheists to weigh in on this fascinating frontier in scientific discovery. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of both the theory intelligent design and of evolution on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". During this testimony Behe conceded that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.

John E. Jones III, the judge of the case, in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing:

• "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."
• "As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."
• "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."
• "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."
• "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
• "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."
• "Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."
• "Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."
• "...proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ...

Other cases

Behe has been employed as an expert witness, for which he received $20,000, on behalf of the plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit filed by Association of Christian Schools International, which is representing a number of Christian schools against the University of California in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns. The 2005 filing claimed that University of California's rejection of several of their courses was illegal "viewpoint discrimination." In 2007, Behe's expert witness report claimed that the Christian textbooks are excellent works for high school students and defended that view in a deposition.

On March 28, 2008 the defendants won a legal victory when their motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied. In part of the judgement, the court focused on several creationist/intelligent design texts and quoted Behe's testimony against the plaintiffs:

Plaintiff's evidence also supports Defendants' conclusion that these biology texts are inappropriate for use as the primary or sole text. Plaintiffs' own biology expert, Professor Michael Behe, testified that "it is personally abusive and pedagogically damaging to de facto require students to subscribe to an idea. . . . Requiring a student to, effectively, consent to an idea violates [her] personal integrity. Such a wrenching violation [may cause] a terrible educational outcome." (Behe Decl. Para. 59.)

Yet, the two Christian biology texts at issue commit this "wrenching violation." For example, Biology for Christian Schools declares on the very first page that:

(1) "'Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so,' is the only [position] a Christian can take. . . ."

(2) "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."

(3) "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible." (Phillips Decl. Ex. B, at xi.)

Published material

Books

• Darwin's Black Box. Free Press, 1996. ISBN 0-684-83493-6
• Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute), September 25, 1999. ISBN 0-89870-809-5
• The Edge of Evolution. Free Press, June 2007. ISBN 0-743-29620-6

Videos

• Intelligent Design: From the Big Bang to Irreducible Complexity
• Unlocking the Mystery of Life 2002
• Irreducible Complexity: The Biochemical Challenge to Darwinian Theory
• Where Does the Evidence Lead? 2004

External links

• Lehigh University Faculty bio
• Behe's Amazon Blog
• International Society for Complexity Information and Design
• Discovery institute biography
  • Discovery Institute articles by Behe
• Behe at Access Research Network
• Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on intelligent design — part of the talk.origins archive.
• Irreducible Complexity Demystified
• Behe's Empty Box, on Richard Dawkins academic website
• Michael Behe
• H. Allen Orr's rebuttal of Behe
• The 1997 Firing Line Creation-Evolution Debate
• Video Lecture: Behe on the Argument for Design
• Michael Behe at IMDb
• Unlocking the Mystery of Life the flagellar motor video
• Inferior Design Richard Dawkins' New York Times Book Review of Behe's The Edge of Evolution