Disclaimer The opinions presented here are solely my

Disclaimer: The opinions presented here are solely my own, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Lehigh University or any of its departments or employees.

The Argument for Intelligent Design in Biology Michael J Behe Lehigh University Bethlehem, PA

My argument : § Design not mystical. Deduced from physical structure of a system § Everyone agrees aspects of biology appear designed § There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution § Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination § Bottom line: Strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism

My argument : § Design not mystical. Deduced from physical structure of a system § Everyone agrees aspects of biology appear designed § There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution § Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination § Bottom line: Strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism

What is “intelligent design”? (n) — The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details”, www. thefreedictionary. com n Design is simply the purposeful n “de-sign' arrangement of parts n We infer design whenever parts appear arranged to accomplish a function

What is “intelligent design”? n The strength of the inference is quantitative.

Sawtooth mountains, Idaho

Old Man of the Mountain, New Hampshire

Mount Rushmore, South Dakota

My argument : § Design not mystical. Deduced from physical structure of a system § Everyone agrees aspects of biology appear designed § There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution § Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination § Bottom line: Strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism

Dawkins R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton, p. 1 • “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ”

Dawkins R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton, p. 21 • “We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying, swimming, seeing … [A]ny engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object. ”

Dawkins R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton, p. 21 • “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. ”

William Paley . . . when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive. . . that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; . . . The inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker.

Cell (1998) 92, table of contents. • “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines” • “Polymerases and the Replisome: Machines within Machines” • “Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs, and Things”

Alberts, B. A. (1998). The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists. Cell 93, 291 -294. • “The chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. . Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. ”

Alberts, B. A. (1998). The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists. Cell 93, 291 -294. • “Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like the machines invented by humans …, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts. ”

My argument : § Design not mystical. Deduced from physical structure of a system § Everyone agrees aspects of biology appear designed § There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution § Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination § Bottom line: Strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism

Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, p. 158 • If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

The Bacterial Flagellum Voet & Voet, 1995

My argument : § Design not mystical. Deduced from physical structure of a system § Everyone agrees aspects of biology appear designed § There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution § Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination § Bottom line: Strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism

Darwin’s Black Box has been reviewed or profiled in the following: • New York Times • Washington Post • Allentown Morning Call • Aboard (Bolivia) • Christianity Today • Skeptic

Darwin’s Black Box has been reviewed or profiled in the following: • New York Times • Washington Post • Allentown Morning Call • Nature • American Scientist • Chronicle of Higher Education • Boston Review • • Aboard (Bolivia) Christianity Today Skeptic Quarterly Review of Biology • Philosophy of Science • Biology & Philosophy • and many others. . .

• “There is no doubt that the pathways • “Mr. Behe may be right that given described by Behe are dauntingly our current state of knowledge, good complex, and their evolution will be old Darwinian evolution cannot hard to unravel. . We may forever be explain the origin of blood clotting unable to envisage the first protoor cellular transport. ” pathways. ” James Shreeve, New York Times Jerry Coyne, Nature • “Pick up any biochemistry textbook, • “There are no detailed Darwinian and you will find perhaps two or accounts for the evolution of any three references to evolution. Turn to fundamental biochemical or cellular one of these and you will be lucky to system, only a variety of wishful find anything better than ‘evolution speculations. ” selects the fittest molecules for their James Shapiro, National Review biological function. ’” Andrew Pomiankowski, New Scientist “Provocative, audacious, and original. ” Richard Restak, Brainwork (The Neuroscience Newsletter)

Griffin, D. R. Religion and Scientific Naturalism; SUNY Press: 2000, p. 287. • The response I have received from repeating Behe’s claim about the evolutionary literature —which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Crick, Denton, Shapiro, Stanley, Taylor, Wesson—is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am assured, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.

Griffin, D. R. Religion and Scientific Naturalism; SUNY Press: 2000, p. 287. • When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not in fact contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.

Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 205 • “We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity (Behe 1996); but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations. ”

My argument : § Design not mystical. Deduced from physical structure of a system § Everyone agrees aspects of biology appear designed § There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution § Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination § Bottom line: Strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism

Dawkins R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton, p. 21 • “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. ”

An In-duck-tive Argument

Encyclopedia Brittanica Online http: //search. eb. com/ebi/article? toc. Id=204014 • Inductive reasoning. • When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. This is the kind of logic normally used in the sciences. … An inductive argument, however, is never final: It is always open to the possibility of being falsified. … It is by this process of induction and falsification that progress is made in the sciences.

My argument : § Design not mystical. Deduced from physical structure of a system § Everyone agrees aspects of biology appear designed § There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution § Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination § Bottom line: Strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism

My responses to critics can be found at: • Behe, M. J. 2004. “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution. ” In Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA, Ruse, M. and Dembski, W. A. , eds. , Cambridge University Press, pp. 352 -370. • Behe, M. J. 2003. “The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules. ” In God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, Neil Manson, ed. , Routledge, pp. 277 -291. • Behe, M. J. 2001. Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Biology and Philosophy 16, 685 -709. • Behe, M. J. 2000. Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin. Philosophy of Science 67, 155 -162. • WWW. CRSC. ORG