Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design - Part 4

This is the final installment of my Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design posts. I know they are on more of the academic side for a blog, but there is valuable information here. The books listed in the bibliography are good sources of information to get you started. I think Christians need to realize that this is an important debate. It's not just for the scientists to discuss. There is much at stake in this debate and Christians need to know that the opposition doesn't hold the monopoly on truth. As shown here, there is much evidence that goes against Evolution and points to an Intelligent Designer. It is my hope that this information will be used to defend the faith and to defend the truth (for they are the same).

Support for Intelligent Design

There needs to be an acknowledgment of the fact that we all look at the evidence and the facts with certain presuppositions. This is just as true for the Christian as it is for the evolutionist, just as true for the scientist as it is for the rest of us. We all view things through a biased set of glasses and the sooner we acknowledge this the sooner we can open the conversation. If we do not recognize this, though, then we are only fooling ourselves and not helping our journey to find the truth. Ken Ham states,

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
(Ham. Creation, Where’s the Proof)

What should reasonable people conclude when they look at the available evidence? This is the question that should be asked when we are looking at the facts that have been established. When looking at the complexity of life and the large variation in life it seems reasonable to conclude that nature has been designed by some form of intelligence.

Irreducible Complexity

In his book, “Darwin's Black Box”, Michael Behe introduced the notion of irreducible complexity as a challenge to neo-Darwinian theory: “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning (Behe 39).” Why is irreducible complexity a challenge to Darwinian Theory? In the “Origins of Species” Charles Darwin wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Irreducible complexity is a challenge to Darwinian Theory because it shows that some biological structures cannot be built by “numerous, successive, slight modifications” as Darwin first proposed.



Michael Behe uses the example of the mousetrap to explain the concept of irreducible complexity: It contains five interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth; certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system.

Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all (Behe 42).

How does irreducible complexity apply to biology?



Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cell was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a "black box", something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore.

Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world (Denton 250).” In a word, the cell is complicated, very complicated.

In fact, Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we saw in the mousetrap example. In other words, they are all or nothing: either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn't work. As we saw before, such a system cannot be constructed in a gradual manner, it simply won't work until all the components are present, and Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the components at once. Remember, Darwin's mechanism is one of gradual mutations leading to improved fitness and survival. A less-than-complete system of this nature simply will not function, and it certainly won't help the organism to survive. Indeed, having a half-formed and hence non-functional system would actually hinder survival and would be selected against.



A prime example of Michael Behe's “irreducible complexity” is the bacteria flagellum. With over 40 essential parts, the flagellum is a rotary motor used to propel a bacterium in liquid. Spinning at 17,000 RPMs, the motor is acid driven, liquid cooled and self-replicating. Each of the components of this system are necessary and will not function with out the others.

This is only one of many biochemical systems that Behe discusses in his book, Darwin's Black Box. Other examples of irreducible complexity include the light-sensing system in animal eyes, the transport system within the cell, and the blood clotting system. All consist of a very complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified while maintaining functionality.

Since the publication of Darwin’s Black Box, Behe has refined the definition of irreducible complexity. In 1996 he wrote that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional (Behe Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry).” By defining irreducible complexity in terms of “nonfunctionality,” Behe casts light on the fundamental problem with evolutionary theory: evolution cannot produce something where there would be a non-functional intermediate. Natural selection only preserves or “selects” those structures which are functional. If it is not functional, it cannot be naturally selected.

Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function at all, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution; the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding “yes.”


Bibliography
Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box. New York: Touchstone, 1996.

Behe, Michael J. “Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry”
(http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm)

Chambers, Roger. “Darwin in Fantasyland” Christian Standard. Oct. 17th, 1982.

Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon. Of Pandas and People. Dallas: Haughton
Publishing Company, 2004.

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda: Adler & Adler, 1986.

Ham, Kent. “Creation, Where’s the Proof?” Answers In Genesis.
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp)

Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993.