The Lion of Intelligent Design Roars Again

BY NATHAN H. LENTS

DR. MICHAEL BEHE IS A PROFESSOR OF BIOCHEMISTRY at Lehigh University and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, an organization noted for promoting the pseudoscientific theory of Intelligent Design (ID). He has now written his third book in attack of modern evolutionary theory: Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA that Challenges Evolution (2019, HarperOne). Although his views are well outside the scientific mainstream, this will not stop the efforts of the creationist and ID communities to use Behe’s work to convince school boards that ID is a valid scientific theory. Accordingly, the scientific and skeptical communities should not yield to the temptation to ignore Behe.1 Because his careful writing has the veneer of expertise, the public will look to scientists for responses to the points raised in Darwin Devolves, and I urge my colleagues to respond, not with insults, but with the only tool that matters, evidence.

At several points in Darwin Devolves, Behe makes clear his acceptance of the fact that life has evolved over billions of years and that all living things are related by universal common descent. He also acknowledges how mutation and natural selection have shaped organisms and achieved fitness gains in specific cases. Where he disagrees is the mechanism of how genetic change drives evolution of anything other than the smallest tweaks. Where science has shown that mutation and recombination provide the raw material for all of life’s diversity, Behe maintains that mutations can only break things and an intelligent intervention is required for innovation or even simple gains-of-function. To support his view, he spends a lot of time explaining, in mostly accurate detail, several cases of how mutations have diminished functions of genes with the result of improving survival, although his discussion is misleading, as I’ll explain.

As is his calling card, Behe holds modern evolutionary theory to an impossible standard, declaring it “insufficient” if we cannot pinpoint every point mutation, every intermediate genetic step, in what order, and in which ancient organisms. Meanwhile, Behe’s own theory is held to no standard whatsoever, enjoying a vaulted default status as any gaps in knowledge are simply filled by the designer. Fortunately, his reasoning failed to convince a federal district court in Dover, PA which blocked the school board’s attempt to insert mention of ID into science textbooks. It is worth noting that the lead witness on behalf of the plaintiffs was Kenneth Miller, a devout Catholic who has been often featured in the pages of this magazine for his tireless and erudite defense of the proper teaching of evolutionary science. As Judge John E. Jones III found, ID cannot be scientifically tested. Darwin Devolves continues this pseudoscientific tradition.

“You Keep Using That Word”

First, regarding the title, I had never heard the word “devolve” or “devolution” used in a scientific context until I read this book. Behe means it as the opposite of evolution, which doesn’t make much sense in biology. Outside of science, evolution can indeed mean an increase in complexity or some other form of progress or improvement. PokemonTM can evolve from a lower to a higher form, and so forth. In biology, evolution merely means change in a population over time. This is not a pedantic distinction.

Biological evolution does not imply increasing complexity or any kind of progress. Evolution is not directional or goal-oriented whatsoever. It is sloppy, meandering, reverses itself, and favors simplicity just as often as complexity, if not more so. We like to think of ourselves, perhaps the most complex creatures in some ways, as the pinnacle of evolution, 2 but bacteria often go in the other direction and evolve to be extremely efficient. Since bacterial cells outnumber human cells even in our own bodies, it’s odd to believe that we are “more evolved” than they. To be sure, plenty of words are used differently in science, e.g., theory, certainty, confidence, etc., but a biochemist like Behe should know better. While it’s possible that his use of this strange word is tongue-in-cheek, he uses it in a specific way—to describe a loss of function—over and over again throughout the book and never indicates that he’s anything but serious. This betrays a very fundamental and all-too-pervasive misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.