# Reviewing Behe's "Darwin Devolves"

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/reviewing-behes-darwin-devolves/2438>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Design, BookClub\
**Created:** [October 26, 2018, 12:47am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/reviewing-behes-darwin-devolves/2438 "2018-10-26T00:47:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 73

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [January 17, 2019, 9:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/reviewing-behes-darwin-devolves/2438/73 "2019-01-17T21:38:13Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Callen](#):
>
> I don’t see that it can potentially prove or disprove anything, except that it would disprove irreducible complexity, at least as it pertains to that, particular, example. Am I right?

Behe’s claims about IC have already been disproven. See the work of molecular biologist Joe Thornton in resurrecting ancient proteins. IC structures have been empirically shown to evolve through indirect pathways, using co-option and molecular scaffolding. Thornton’s work caused Behe to now claim IC systems can’t evolve through **direct** Darwinian pathways which is a pretty lame claim since they still evolve.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/reviewing-behes-darwin-devolves/2438)._