"The question of how the eye works - that is, what happens when a photon of light first impinges on the retina - simply could not be answered at that time"
About this Quote
There is a quiet sleight of hand in Behe's phrasing: a claim about past scientific limits that doubles as an argument about present-day plausibility. By anchoring the problem at the moment a photon hits the retina, he picks the most cinematic micro-instant in vision and frames it as a black box - not just unknown, but unanswerable "at that time". That clause matters. It invites the reader to treat historical ignorance as evidence that something deeper resists ordinary explanation.
Behe's broader cultural position, as a scientist associated with intelligent design, gives the line extra charge. The subtext isn't simply "we didn't know"; it's "we couldn't have known through standard evolutionary storytelling", a move that subtly shifts the burden of proof. He isn't describing science as a slow, cumulative enterprise so much as implying a ceiling - a period when mechanism was inaccessible, leaving space for inference from complexity.
Rhetorically, the sentence is calibrated to sound modest while doing heavy lifting. "Simply could not" is categorical but wears the costume of restraint. The parenthetical definition ("that is...") narrows the field to a technical trigger point, which helps the claim feel precise and therefore trustworthy. Yet the vagueness of "at that time" keeps the context elastic: it can gesture to Darwin's era, early physiology, or pre-molecular biology, depending on what the surrounding argument needs.
It works because it trades on a familiar frustration - that the really important biological steps are invisible to intuition - then repackages that frustration as a philosophical opening.
Behe's broader cultural position, as a scientist associated with intelligent design, gives the line extra charge. The subtext isn't simply "we didn't know"; it's "we couldn't have known through standard evolutionary storytelling", a move that subtly shifts the burden of proof. He isn't describing science as a slow, cumulative enterprise so much as implying a ceiling - a period when mechanism was inaccessible, leaving space for inference from complexity.
Rhetorically, the sentence is calibrated to sound modest while doing heavy lifting. "Simply could not" is categorical but wears the costume of restraint. The parenthetical definition ("that is...") narrows the field to a technical trigger point, which helps the claim feel precise and therefore trustworthy. Yet the vagueness of "at that time" keeps the context elastic: it can gesture to Darwin's era, early physiology, or pre-molecular biology, depending on what the surrounding argument needs.
It works because it trades on a familiar frustration - that the really important biological steps are invisible to intuition - then repackages that frustration as a philosophical opening.
Quote Details
| Topic | Science |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Michael
Add to List





