by Lewis Loflin
I’ve spent my life in engineering and electronics—science to me is what it *produces*: circuits that work, transistors that switch, not vague models or abstractions. Michael Behe’s *Darwin’s Black Box* claims life’s complexity—like blood clotting or the eye—can’t arise naturally, hinting at something beyond proof. That’s mysticism, and it has no place in science, just as “positive flow” has nothing to do with electrons moving in a wire. But I’m equally skeptical of claims that biological complexity emerges from pure chance and time. Fossils show change, but the mechanism—the *how*—lacks hard evidence. Labs can’t build life from chemicals despite decades of trying. Science isn’t about stories; it’s about results. When proof fails, we say “we don’t know,” not “we believe”—whether it’s Behe’s mysticism or evolution’s dice.
Behe argues systems like blood clotting or the eye need all parts at once to function, so evolution couldn’t assemble them gradually. It’s a real question: how do complex systems form? Fossils show simpler setups—crabs with basic clotting, early creatures with light-sensitive spots—but the path to full complexity isn’t nailed down. Evolutionists point to gene duplication, mutation, and time, yet there’s no concrete proof random changes can engineer such precision. It’s like expecting noise to design a circuit. In electronics, I deal with what works—transistor theory, not mystical gaps. Behe’s error is filling those gaps with untestable “beyonds.” Science demands evidence, not leaps. Without it, we say “we don’t know” and keep testing.
Complexity calls for data, not spirits or luck.
Evolution’s narrative says random mutations, filtered by selection, built life’s intricate systems over eons. That’s a claim, not a result. Randomness crafting order on that scale is as unproven as a computer model predicting a bridge’s strength without testing steel. Labs trying to spark life from non-living matter have produced nothing—no cell, no circuit of life. These gaps don’t justify Behe’s mystical hints—science rejects anything unmeasurable, just as electronics ignores “positive flow” when electrons do the work. But they also show evolution’s reliance on chance is more guess than fact. Fossils trace patterns, not wiring diagrams. When evidence is absent, science says “we don’t know,” not “it just happened.”
“Fossils show paths, not plans; labs build nothing alive—science delivers results, not beliefs.” – An engineer’s view.
Science is about what you can build and measure—circuits, not dreams. Behe’s “black box” sees life’s complexity as too tough for nature, leaning on untestable wonder. That’s as useless to science as mysticism is to transistor design. Yet evolution’s story of chance stacking complexity isn’t backed by hard results either—it’s a theory, not a product. My forest shifted from locusts to oaks through adaptation, but no random fluke or ethereal force explains it. Fossils, genes, and lab work offer hints, not blueprints. Science doesn’t bend for unproven claims—it delivers or admits “we don’t know.” Life’s mechanisms remain unsolved; honesty drives the next experiment.
Truth is in what works, not Behe’s awe or Darwin’s dice.
Outside science, I align with Thomas Jefferson’s view: I see a creator, noncontrolling, who sustains nature’s functions and workings—upholding the laws of physics, gravity, and perhaps life’s potential. This isn’t a deity tinkering or walking away, but one maintaining the universe’s order, letting nature do its job. I don’t discard mysticism as a personal idea—it might have its place—but it’s irrelevant to science, like feelings are to a circuit board. This belief stays out of the lab; science demands results, not reflections. Behe’s hints and evolution’s chance both lack the evidence to crack life’s toughest questions. When proof runs dry, science says “we don’t know”—that’s where I stand.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
Click to Visit!
