true-crime stories, for the ultimate paradoxrnof his melodramatic fiction is itsrnfirm hold on truth. Chandler has morernin common with Balzac and Dickensrnthan he does with his host of imitators.rnHiney’s book is flawed by errors inrnproofreading, among others. His summaryrnof the plot of Farewell, My Lovely,rnfor instance, gets whodunit and otherrnthings wrong. Even so, his biography ofrnChandler maintains its firm sense of perspective.rnHe succeeds in showing us thernRaymond Chandler who still lives in thernimaginations of thousands of readers—rnthe Chandler who knew that imperishablernwriting “glows with its own heat,”rnand was capable of delivering the same.rn].0. Tate is a professor of English atrnDowling College on Long Island.rnBeyondrnDarwinismrnby John CaiazzarnDarwin’s Black Box:rnThe Biochemical Challengernto Evolutionrnby Michael /. BehernNew York: The Free Press;rn307 pp., $25.00rnIn the Victorian era, Iligh Churchmenrncastigated Darwin as a materialist whornwould reduce men to mere monkeys,rnand earnest materialists enunciated a visionrnof scientific progress that, as it were,rnonly incidentally drained the universe ofrnpurpose.rnDarwinian propaganda has been withrnus for 100 years, a mechanical explanationrnnot only of the origins of life—as ifrnthat were not enough—but of the humanrnmind, ideas, culture, ethics, and religion.rnAgainst these latter-day Huxleys arnnew champion has appeared: not an Anglicanrnbishop like “Soapy Sam” Wilbcrforcc,rnwho took on T.R. Huxley in a famousrnOxford debate, but a biochemistrnwhose researches have convinced himrnthat the reach of Darwinism does not extendrnto the most basic levels of nature.rnMichael Behe is a professor of biochemistryrnat Lehigh University whoserndoubts about orthodox Darwinism havernearned applause from those who opposernthe Darwinian faith, and criticism fromrnevolutionists who claim that his argumentsrnare fraudulent. His reservationsrnabout Darwinism in Darwin’s Black Boxrnare not based on creationism; they arernmore subtle and responsible. Behe believesrnthat evolution did take place—rnthat life evolved over several billion yearsrnfrom the most primitive to the mostrncomplex forms—^but he does not believernthat the Darwinian account can fully explainrnthis process. Nor does he believernthat acceptance of evolution implies materialism,rnreductionism, or a vision of thernnatural world devoid of design. Providence,rnor a Creator.rnBehe’s book is well organized, presentingrnarguments in favor of an updatedrnview that design is part of nature whilernrefuting Darwinian propaganda pouredrnforth by the likes of Daniel Bennett andrnRichard Dawkins. In the heart of thernbook, however, Behe highlights five biochemicalrnprocesses so complex that theyrncould not have evolved in the orthodoxrnDarwinian manner, i.e., by a slow andrngradual process culling newly mutatedrncharacteristics. For there is no functionalrnuse for the many elementary parts ofrnthese complexes, only for the finishedrnproduct.rnAmong the examples that Behe presentsrnare the formation of scabs on cutsrnand scrapes, which require not only a setrnof complex organic chemicals which interactrnto coagulate the blood but a separaternprotein complex that starts the processrnof coagulation when blood firstrnescapes through the skin, and anotherrnwhich ends coagulation when the job isrndone. Obviously, there is no need in naturernfor a chemical process that endsrnscabbing unless all the prior processes arernin place. Behe argues that these quantumrnleaps on the biochemical level cannotrnbe explained by the orthodox Darwinianrnversion of evolution by naturalrnselection; rather there had to be a priorrndesign present in nature to help thesernsystems evolve.rnBehe does not believe that evolutionrnnever took place, but that the motivernforce of evolution cannot have been thernmechanical process postulated by Darwin.rnIt is noteworthy that, although thernDarwinian account of natural selectionrnhas never been proved true by empiricalrnobservation, it is treated by the ultraorthodoxrnas if it were a well-establishedrnscientific law. Since this central dogmarnof the Darwinian view remains unproved,rnthe orthodox must all the morernfirmly hold it as an article of scientificrnfaith. It is the Darwinians with their untowardrnzeal to promote the mechanicalrnvision who now manifest the bad mannersrnof true believers, and who, as a matterrnof literal fact, describe their positionrnas an “orthodoxy,” defined in terms of arn”central dogma.” Behe’s arguments andrnhis evidence of what goes on within Darwin’srnblack box may well have changedrnthe terms of the debate for this generation.rn]ohn Caiazza writes from Medford,rnMassachusetts.rnO V I N G •rnTo assure uninterruptedrndelivery ofrnCHRONICLES,rnplease notifyrnus in advance.rnSend changernof addressrnwith thernmailingrnlabel fromrnyour latestrnissue to:rnCHRONICLESrnSUBSCRIPTIONrnDEPARTMENTrnPO. BOX 800rnMOUNT MORRIS,rnILLINOIS 61054rnNOVEMBER 1997/33rnrnrn