Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 8, 2001, Thursday,  Pg. C-1

[Behe interview in Pittsburgh]
PAMELA R. WINNICK, POST-GAZETTE STAFF WRITER

    Although scientists have been debating the science of evolution since
Charles Darwin's seminal work on the subject, "On the Origin of the
Species," was published in 1859, one of the more recent developments in
this debate has been the emergence of a new concept called "intelligent
design."

    According to Darwin, humans developed from lower forms of animals over
a period of millions of years. Changes within a species occur through a
process known as natural selection, in which, through genetic mutations,
those with superior attributes survive and reproduce, eventually altering
the species. Evolution remains the majority view of scientists, endorsed
by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Science
Education and the National Association of Biology Teachers.

    Evolution presupposes a random process of change that some say
conflicts with the existence of a divine intelligence, the biblical
account of the origin of life and the notion that God especially created man. In
many states, strict creationists have tried -- to date, unsuccessfully --
to persuade public school officials to change the science curriculum to
enable creationism to be taught alongside evolution.

      What distinguishes intelligent design from creationism is that it
has won the backing of a minority of scientists. Among them is Michael J.
Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University who in 1996 published
"Darwin's Black Box," a controversial book in which he argues that
Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot account for the complexity of cellular
life and that only a divine intelligence could have produced life in all
its many forms.

    Behe is no crackpot. He received his Ph.D. in biochemistry in 1978
from the University of Pennsylvania, where he did his dissertation work on
sickle cell disease. He subsequently worked for four years at the National
Institutes of Health on problems of DNA structure and joined the faculty
at Lehigh in 1985.

    He discussed his ideas in advance of a visit to Grove City College
tonight, where he'll be speaking as part of ceremonies there celebrating
the 125th anniversary of the school's founding.

    Q. You were originally a believer in evolution. What changed your
mind?

    A. I was taught Darwin's theory from grade school through college and,
though I had vague suspicions about its validity, I had no reason to doubt
my instructors. I became skeptical of the theory in the late 1980s after
reading a book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by an Australian geneticist
named Michael Denton. Denton pointed out a number of scientific problems
of  the theory that I had never considered before.

    Denton talked about what I went on to explore: the great complexity of
cellular life, which could not have come about randomly as Darwin
believed.

    Q. You're a practicing Catholic and a believer in God. Have your
religious beliefs influenced your scientific work?

    A. My religious beliefs haven't influenced my scientific work. I first
learned Darwin's theory in parochial school. We were taught that it was
God's way of making life through natural laws. That seemed fine with me.
It was only when I learned of scientific problems with the theory of
evolution that I became skeptical of it.

    Q. Explain how your own work disproves or brings into question the
theory of evolution.

    A. Darwin's theory assumes gradual change, with natural selection
slowly improving life in small steps. Some things, however, can't be
improved gradually. For example, think of a typical mechanical mousetrap
you get at a store. It has a number of parts that are needed to catch a
mouse. Take one part away and the trap doesn't work. It's very hard to see
how something like a mousetrap can be built gradually, in the way Darwin's
theory requires.

    At the biological level, some cells are like mousetraps in that they
only work with all parts interacting. One good example is the bacterial
flagellum, which is quite literally an outboard motor that bacteria use to
swim. It's got a propeller, a motor, nuts and bolts to hold things.
Natural  selection could not have created these individual functions, because they
have developed more or less simultaneously, rather than having been built
step by step as Darwin envisioned.

    When we see a mousetrap we realize it is the product of intelligent
design, because of the way the parts of the trap work together to
accomplish its function. I think we can come to a similar conclusion for
cellular machinery.

    Q. In your view, does embracing intelligent design require one to
believe in God?

    A. Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God,
it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who
the designer is. While most people -- including me -- will think the
designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space
alien or something odd like that.

    The conclusion that parts of life were intentionally designed can be
supported with scientific evidence. The further deduction that the
designer  is God requires philosophical and theological arguments.

    Q. Why do you think established scientists have been so opposed to
questioning evolution?

    A. Some scientists have disagreed with me for a variety of reasons.
It's been my experience, however, that the ones who oppose the theory of
design most vociferously do so for religious reasons. Either they don't
believe in God, and think intelligent design is a stalking horse for a
viewpoint they oppose. Or they do believe in God, but find it distasteful
to think God would be quite so active.

    Q. Dr. Lawrence Lerner, professor emeritus at California State
University at Long Beach, recently called you a "screwball." How do you
respond to such labels by members of the scientific establishment?

    A. In a way it actually makes me feel good when Darwinists call me
names. First, it shows that they are having a tough time coming up with
actual arguments against design. It also shows that they aren't the coolly
logical persons they would have everyone think they are.

    Q. Has your questioning of evolution affected your academic career?

    A. My questioning of Darwinian evolution has brought me notoriety in
some circles, but hasn't brought any negative repercussions. I still teach
and publish as before, although my research interests have shifted toward
more explicitly evolutionary questions. I'm frequently asked to lecture on
college campuses. I'm having a lot of fun!

    Q. One criticism of scientists who advocate intelligent design is that
their writings are not published in peer-reviewed journals. Is this true?

    A. I've tried to publish on this topic in journals, but the editors
were not receptive. So I and my colleagues have written books to explain
design. Before publication the books were sent out to scientists and
philosophers for comments and criticisms. They have been more thoroughly
reviewed before publication than the typical journal paper.

    Q. In Pennsylvania, standards have been approved by the Department of
Education that would allow teachers to expose students to theories that
"support and do not support" the theory of evolution. How, in your view,
how should evolution be presented to high school students?

    A. I certainly think Darwinian evolution should be taught in high
school. It's an important theory. But I think it should be taught "warts
and all." Teach the evidence that fits into the theory, but also present
the evidence that doesn't. Talk about examples that seem to demonstrate
how  evolution works, but also talk about examples that have been shown to be
fraudulent or seriously incomplete. In the past students have been misled
by their biology textbooks. In the future, students should be taught the
difference between data and interpretation.

    Behe will speak at 7 p.m. in Crawford Auditorium on the Grove City
College campus. For more information, call 724-458-3302 or contact
cwdunn@gcc.edu.