North Texas Skeptic - Vol 13 No 11 - 1999

Magazine Overview

This issue of The North Texas Skeptic, Volume 13, Number 11, dated November 1999, features a critical examination of Michael J. Behe's book 'Darwin's Black Box' as its main article, titled 'Behe's black box,' written by John Blanton. The newsletter also includes a 'What's new' section with various science news items.

Behe's black box

The article begins by introducing Michael J. Behe, a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, and his book 'Darwin's Black Box.' Behe's central argument, as presented in the article, is that while Darwin's theory of natural selection explains many aspects of life, it fails to account for the complex molecular chemistry of life, particularly systems that are 'irreducibly complex.' Behe contends that these systems, like a house of cards, require all their parts to function and thus could not have arisen through gradual evolutionary steps. He suggests that this points to intelligent design.

The review then delves into criticisms of Behe's work, primarily focusing on two points: that he has 'given up the search much too soon' and that his approach relies on 'magical tweaks' rather than sound science.

Regarding the first criticism, the article cites examples where Behe claims a lack of scientific explanation for certain biochemical processes, such as the evolution of the immune system or the clotting cascade. However, the review points to scientific papers and research that do attempt to model these evolutionary pathways, suggesting Behe has not thoroughly reviewed the existing literature. For instance, a paper on the 'Evolution of the Complement System' is described as short and lacking quantitative calculations, but Behe uses it as evidence for the inadequacy of evolutionary explanations. The article also mentions Donald C. Lindsay's rebuttal to Behe, noting that experts in specific fields like cilia, clotting, and the immune system are not impressed by Behe's examples. Behe's claim that no textbook on molecular evolution exists is refuted by the reviewer, who owns one. Furthermore, the article highlights that Behe dismisses the study of molecular history through phylogenetic trees, a method that has yielded significant results.

The review also addresses Behe's arguments concerning the complexity of flagella and cilia. Behe claims that the large number of proteins involved (240 for a functional flagellum) and the absence of scientific literature on their gradual evolution support his idea of irreducible complexity. However, the article counters that a PubMed search reveals numerous articles discussing the evolution of flagella and cilia, suggesting Behe's impression of a lack of literature is mistaken. The article concedes that cilia and flagella are complicated but disputes the other two points of Behe's argument.

The second major criticism is that Behe's reliance on intelligent design is unscientific. The article quotes Robert Pennock, a philosopher of science, who critiques the idea of invoking miracles or supernatural intervention in science. Pennock argues that if the supernatural could be controlled or understood by natural means, it would cease to be supernatural. The review suggests that Behe's conclusion of intelligent design is an unscientific leap, akin to invoking witchcraft rather than a scientific explanation.

The article questions Behe's audience, noting that while he is not a Christian, his book appeals to those who may be looking for alternatives to Darwinism. It suggests that Behe's work, if submitted to scientific journals, would be a major event, but its current form is seen as a collection of 'half-baked ideas.' The review concludes that scientists are actively solving the problems Behe deems intractable, while creationists seem content to declare victory.

What's new

The 'What's new' section provides brief updates on several science-related topics:

• Polygraph: A Senate resolution has called on the NIH to investigate the validity of polygraphs as screening tools, citing a 1983 study that found little evidence for their effectiveness. The NIH is asked to support an updated study by the National Academy of Sciences. The DOE Secretary has also scaled back polygraph testing plans.
• Cellular phones: The controversy linking cellular phones to brain cancer is revived by an ABC News 20/20 report. The article notes that a previous lawsuit was dismissed, and the editor of Microwave News, Louis Slesin, whose Ph.D. is in 'Urban Studies and Planning,' was featured as an expert.
• Free energy: Martin Fleischmann, a co-discoverer of cold fusion, discussed 'chemically assisted nuclear reactions' at NRL. He acknowledged the ongoing issue of irreproducibility in the field but expressed no doubts about the source of 'excess heat.' The article contrasts this with Steven Jones, who is now working on solar cookers.
• Creationism: The article reports on changes in teaching standards regarding evolution in New Mexico and Kentucky. In New Mexico, the State School Board amended standards to prevent religious alternatives from being discussed, replacing 'Discuss evidence for and against evolution' with 'Discuss the various mechanisms proposed to interpret evolution.' Kentucky replaced 'evolution' with 'change over time.' The author likens this to replacing 'cold fusion' with 'chemically assisted nuclear reactions.'

Helene Grossman is credited as a contributor to the 'What's New' section.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is a critical examination of arguments against evolutionary biology, particularly those presented by proponents of intelligent design. The North Texas Skeptics, through this publication, clearly aligns itself with the scientific consensus supporting evolution and expresses skepticism towards claims that challenge it without robust scientific evidence. The editorial stance is one of rigorous scientific inquiry, emphasizing the importance of peer-reviewed research, thorough scholarship, and the avoidance of unproven or supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. The 'What's New' section further reinforces this by reporting on scientific developments and controversies, often with a skeptical or clarifying perspective.