Assumption
Four, Part Two: "Irreducible Complexity" *
In assumption two, “Order Evolved from
Disorder,” I pointed out that the
entire universe is “fine-tuned” with incredible precision to support life on
earth (the Anthropic Principle). This is demonstrated by the fact that there
are several dozen fundamental constants—precise physical parameters—in place
throughout the cosmos, including our solar system, that are essential to
sustain life on earth. If any of these
constants differed even minutely, life would be impossible. This
remarkable phenomenon is powerful evidence for creation by intentional design
(teleology).
Since the development of the electron
microscope in the late 1930s, research into the structure of the cell has
progressively revealed that the same incredible design observed throughout the
universe is also found in the smallest particles of living matter. Even at a
molecular level, single-celled organisms are comprised of numerous complex,
precisely constructed, interacting parts, which biochemist Michael Behe calls molecular machines. These tiny protein
“machines” are structures within a cell that have no evolutionary pathway and,
therefore, could not have evolved through natural, random processes (chance).
Behe refers to this evolutionary black
box as “irreducible complexity.”
In order to see why there is no evolutionary
pathway for these molecular machines, it’s necessary to understand how natural
selection works. According to the evolutionary paradigm, all the individual
parts of a cell (or of an entire organism, for that matter) are a product of
natural selection, which works by making tiny, random improvements in function. Natural selection itself has
no power to create new structures from scratch; it only acts on existing
designs already built into a system. In the case of a cell, this means natural selection can’t begin to
operate until at least a minimum number of molecular machines are already operational and thus have
function. The challenge for evolutionists is demonstrate how these preexisting
machines originated. They cannot be products of evolution because natural
selection can’t kick in until after the
integrated parts comprising a molecular machine are fully developed and
operating as a unit. If any part is missing or had no function, there would be nothing
on which natural selection could act. This is irreducibly complexity.
Behe illustrates this concept by comparing it
to a mousetrap, which is comprised of five parts (base, spring, hammer, holding
bar, and trigger). If any one of these parts is missing, or not fully formed
and functioning, the mouse trap wouldn’t work. A part spring or part trigger
would have no function, so it couldn’t “evolve" to become a more improved part
spring or part trigger. Only a fully formed mousetrap would have function.
Behe and other researchers provide a variety
of examples of irreducible complexity. They point out, for example, that some
bacteria cells have a microscopic protrusion (a molecular machine) called a flagellum, which allows the cell to move
about—something like an outboard motor. This protein machine is composed of
numerous interacting parts, which must all be in place and fully functioning
before the flagellum can operate. The bacteria flagellum is irreducibly
complex. The individual parts could not have evolved bit-by-bit because each
stage would have no function on which natural selection could operate. In other
words, if any one of the individual parts comprising the flagellum was not
fully formed and working at the very beginning, there could be no flagellum.
Thus, like a mousetrap, only after the flagellum is fully operational would it
have function and natural selection could begin—but of course (like the mouse
trap) the flagellum is already complete and there is nothing to evolve. I never
heard anyone claim bacteria flagellum evolved into something else.
The inability of natural selection to create molecular machines because of a lack of function in precursor parts may be easier to understand if
considered on a larger scale. Think of a reptile leg evolving into a bird
wing. A part leg/part wing at any stage of development would not
benefit either a reptile or an evolving bird. It would have no survival value
(or function) to permit natural selection. Try to imagine a lizard successfully
chasing insects with legs slowly developing feathers and feet designed for
perching rather than running. It would hinder the lizard, not help it catch
prey. Furthermore, the leg-to-wing scenario is only one of countless other
features that would have to evolve simultaneously
during the whole evolutionary process of a reptile changing into a bird.
Along with wings and feathers and perching feet, an evolving bird would also
have to slowly, over eons of time, develop hollow bones, a unique and entirely
different respiratory system, and change from being cold-blooded (like
reptiles) to warm-blooded. None of these intermediate stages would have any
function in terms of survival value. Again: no function, no survival value, no
evolution. (By the way, there is no fossil evidence of intermediate stages
between reptiles and birds—as you’ll see in a future blog article.)
A typical cell contains many thousands of
different kinds of proteins, and the human body has around a100 trillion
cells—all of them working in harmony to maintain our bodies. Since evolution cannot account for irreducibly complex protein
machines like the flagellum—let alone a lizard leg evolving into a bird
wing—the only other option for their origins is a designer who created them.
Irreducible complexity provides additional compelling evidence, especially at a
cellular level, that naturalistic evolution is a philosophical assumption—not
demonstrable science. This will become
even more obvious in my next blog article, which will explore a relatively new
evidence for creation by design called “Information theory”—which demonstrates
the inability of material properties to create information.
* This and the other blog articles in this
series are copyrighted material and may not be reproduced electronically or in
print. But feel free to link this blog to your own website, blog, or Facebook.
I explore irreducible complexity (and other Intelligent Design evidences) more
fully in my book The Christian Combat
Manual (AMG Publishers), and my sources are documented there.
No comments:
Post a Comment