The mousetrap man:
Interview with Mike Behe1
by Carl Wieland
Dr Michael Behe is associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania,
USA. His book Darwin’s Black Box has caused quite a stir among Darwinists
for its profound attack on ‘blind watchmaker’ evolution. It highlights
‘intelligent design’ as an obvious, logical explanation for the intricacy
of biochemical systems found in living things.
Although biblical creationists have been able to make good use of his powerful arguments,
Dr Behe does not claim to be on our side. When I spoke to him briefly on the phone
for this article, he confirmed that ‘if there was good evidence for it [life
coming about through some sort of evolutionary process], I would just accept that.’
A Roman Catholic, he says he does not have ‘any theological difficulties’
with the idea that we came from fish via ape-like ancestors.
His objection, he says, is scientific.
‘The Darwinian mechanism [selection by the environment, acting on chance inherited
mistakes] does not look like it can produce what it claims to be able to produce.’
I knew he had praised Michael Denton’s book
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. At the time, then-agnostic Denton
seemed opposed to the whole idea that one basic type has transformed into another.2 Was Mike Behe convinced,
for example, that reptiles had turned into birds? He replied,
‘No … well, I think it should be decided on the evidence. The
idea of common descent has support, and also some problems. Right now, I’m
willing to accept it as a reasonable working hypothesis, but I could always change
my mind.’
Since he was not in principle opposed to ‘God using evolution,’ why
was he being attacked by many prominent theistic evolutionists? Mike said,
‘Many Christians, particularly in academia, seem to think that not only is
evolution by Darwinism possible, they think God should have done things that way,
aesthetically.’
The notion that someone could think it ‘aesthetic’ for the holy God
of the Bible to create via billions of years of death and accident blew
my mind a little. Might not some of the opposition be because any Christian teaching
Darwinism as scientific ‘fact’ would be severely embarrassed by Behe’s
clear-cut scientific refutation of it?
Mike (who comes across as a very warm and polite person) replied,
‘Some Christians, especially in academia, feel pressure to accept the dominant
scientific explanation for life. If they don’t, they’re relegated to
kind of a second class intellectual status, no matter how smart they are. Even the
best of people can succumb to sociological pressure like that.’
I asked Dr Behe about apparent ‘simulations’ of Darwinian evolution
done on the computer, sometimes called ‘artificial life.’ He chuckled,
‘You can get pretty pictures and nice games on the computer, but even most
Darwinians recognize that these simplistic models are a long way from the real,
complex world of biology and chemistry.’
I put it to him that such ’arguments by analogy’ had strong psychological
appeal, nevertheless. He said,
‘Sure. The Darwinists have a lot of good psychological tricks at their disposal.’
I knew that he had experienced the ‘flak’ and the frustrations of being
in an oft-misrepresented minority position. So, could he understand the difficulties
faced by those physicists and geologists who support six-day
recent creation and the global Flood? He
said yes; he sympathized with any scientist facing deeply entrenched sociological
prejudices.
‘And I’m certainly open to the Bible being literally true, but I don’t
have a theological need for that. If the physical evidence were presented to me
I would decide on that basis.’
Diagram of a mousetrap with the components all required for any mouse trapping function |
I decided to send him a gift subscription to Creation.
It is my prayerful hope that it will spark an interest in the relationship between
biblical authority, the gospel, and science. I
hope he will see that it is ultimately the Bible which explains the evidence, not
the other way around [see Creation: ‘Where’s
the proof?’]
Meanwhile, Michael Behe’s book (see review in Creation 19(2):29–30,
1997) continues to be extremely useful to creationists in exposing fallacies in
Darwinism.
Further reading
Notes
- Why ‘mousetrap man?’ Behe’s classic example
of a system of ‘irreducible complexity’ is a mousetrap; take
away any of its parts, and it can’t function. Likewise for many biochemical
pathways in living cells, which thus could not have evolved step by step.
Return to top.
- At present, Denton’s position may perhaps be best
described as that of a ‘theistic transformist anti-Darwinist intelligent-design
theorist.’ Return to text.
| Ken E. wrote: “I just wanted to drop a note to express my gratitude for the kind of information you supply at the CMI web-site. I love science and find it thrilling to see how it may be used to glorify God and build faith in Him.” Glorify God in His creation.  | | |
|
