Dr. H. Allen Orr is a Professor of Biology at University of Rochester who studies the genetic changes underlying evolution. He is particularly interested in the genetics of speciation and the genetics of adaptation. Allen Orr wrote an article criticizing Michael Behe saying ¡°The latest attack on evolution is cleverly argued, biologically informed C and wrong.¡± Before starting out with his argument Orr admits that Behe¡¯s book is after all a creationist¡¯s¡¯ dream come true, and that no one can deny Behe¡¯s grasp of biochemistry. Orr says, unlike a few previous biologists who have taken aim at Darwin, Behe is the real thing, even though he tries to prove Behe wrong. What¡¯s different about Behe from his less-sophisticated brethren, according to Orr, is that Behe does not deny evolution. Orr takes Behe seriously; hence this is the reason why he wrote the article.
             Orr is interested why Behe feels he is especially qualified to critique Darwinism. He says to a historian or an electrician Behe certainly looks qualified since he is a ¡°Biologist¡±. But it is not that simple. By turning the table around Orr starts a new argument saying ¡°If I, an evolutionary biologist, were to announce that biochemistry is deeply flawed C I¡¯ve shown for instance, that enzymes are not catalysts C I doubt I¡¯d get a listen. I surely wouldn¡¯t get a publisher. Why is everyone an expert witness when the topic is Darwinism but not when it¡¯s biochemistry?¡±
             The answer is complicated, but a few things are clear. First, Darwinism matters. Many people will inevitably have questions about Darwinism because many people will inevitably think about it. Secondly, this has more to do with our education system at American Universities where there is a striking asymmetry in molecular versus evolutionary education. Although many science and all biology students are required to endure molecular courses, but even a...