Behe’s Box is Still Full

A few months ago I ran across a site called “The World of Richard Dawkins.” The site is maintained by John Catalano, and can best be described as worshipful. One does not have to get very far into the site to realize that Mr. Catalano reveres Dawkins as the chosen prophet of the “new religion” of evolution proclaimed by Sir Julian Huxley. Nevertheless, I am impressed with the level of detail on Mr. Catalano’s site, and the sheer volume of the information he has amassed.

Included on the site is a webpage entitled “Behe’s Empty Box.” As expected from the title, this portion of the site is dedicated to critiquing Michael Behe’s Book, “Darwin’s Black Box.” I sent an email letter to Mr. Catalano, clarifying an all-too-frequent misunderstanding regarding Behe’s arguments on irreducible complexity, and the broader design inference.

Having not received any response from Mr. Catalano, however, I decided to post my correspondence, with a couple of minor changes for general distribution.

August 11, 2003

Dear Mr. Catalano:

I recently ran across a page on your site entitled Behe’s Empty Box. Although I have no reason to disbelieve that you have read Mr. Behe’s book, you seem to have missed the main point. Or perhaps you are relying too much on Orr.

Behe did not in fact argue that it was logically impossible for a Darwinian pathway to form an irreducibly complex system. What he argued was that an IC system provided an inference of design. There is an important difference here – one that has been outlined by William Dembski in some detail. What we are really talking about are probability scenarios, not pure logical possibility.

You have apparently misunderstood the design argument. It is not an attempt to “prove” Darwinian evolution false. Rather, design theorists argue that design can be empirically detected, and that many biological systems in fact exhibit this type of design.

Is it theoretically possible under some highly implausible scenario that the mammalian eye or the blood-clotting cascade could have developed through Darwinian pathways? Yes, it is theoretically possible, just as it is theoretically possible that the Sun will cease to shine tomorrow. But it is not likely. Thus, the design argument is not an attempt to “prove” evolution false by inevitable logical deduction, but rather is a proposition that the most likely explanation for certain biological systems is that they were designed.

It is also unclear what your point is of indicating Behe’s religious beliefs. I too have read Behe’s book, as well as a number of his essays, and I have not found that he relies on religious statements for any of his arguments. The fact that Behe’s views on irreducibly complex systems appeal to believers of creation has no more relevance to the debate than the fact that Dawkins’ views appeal to atheistic groups.

Sincerely,

Eric Anderson