Quotes from Michael Behe

In many biological structures proteins are simply components of larger molecular machines.

But sequence comparisons simply can't account for the development of complex biochemical systems any more than Darwin's comparison of simple and complex eyes told him how vision worked.

The conclusion of design flows naturally from the data; we should not shrink from it; we should embrace it and build on it.

We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box.

As the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin's criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.

We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box.

The point here is that physics followed the data where it seemed to lead, even though some thought the model gave aid and comfort to religion.

It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural.

The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.

A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed.

Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted.

It was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection.

It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on.

The amazing but in retrospect unsurprising fact established by the diligent work of many investigators in laboratory evolution over decades is that the great majority of even beneficial positively selected mutations damage an organism's genetic information—either degrading or outright destroying functional coded elements.

Scientists working on the origin of life deserve a lot of credit; they have attacked the problem by experiment and calculation, as science should. And although the experiments have not turned out as many hoped, through their efforts we now have a clear idea of the staggering difficulties that would face an origin of life by natural chemical processes. In private many scientists admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life.