In the beginning
was an unexplained puddle of goo.
Suddenly, an electric arc shot out of nothingness,
creating amino acids. These
acids, through pure chance, developed into proteins and
eventually the first single-cell organism came into being. Over the course of time, chance favored this cell, and
eventually its offspring became every mammal, fish, bird,
amphibian, reptile, microbe, and plant on earth today.
According to evolutionists, this is the most likely
scenario for our existence today.
If this were the case, we should be able to go
backwards in time and conceptually deconstruct every
organism to get to this original cell.
However, in nature, certain things defy this
biological structures are irreducibly complex, which
means this theoretical devolution cannot work on them. Irreducible complexities are one of many evidences in nature against
Darwinian evolution. In
this article, we’ll look at some examples of irreducible
complexity, and explore why they indicate a Creator, rather
than a slow evolutionary process.
in his Origin of Species, said, “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.” The breakdown of Darwin’s theory may well have come at the
hands of biochemist Michael J. Behe, Ph.D.
As Behe explains, “…a system or device is
irreducibly complex if it has a number of different
components that all work together to accomplish the task of
the system, and if you were to remove one of the components,
the system would no longer function.
An irreducibly complex system is highly unlikely to
be built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes, because
the system has to be fully present in order for it to
To illustrate this concept, Behe uses the analogy of a
common mousetrap consists of a flat wooden base, a metal
hammer, a spring, a bar to restrain the hammer, and a catch
for the bar and placement of bait.
If you remove any one of these components, you’re
not left with a mousetrap that is only half as effective –
you’re left with a useless collection of materials. Using
this analogy, the mousetrap could not have evolved with
“successive, slight modifications,” because without all
its components, the mousetrap is nothing, and not likely to
be passed on to another generation.
Let’s look at some examples of irreducible
complexity in nature.
Performance Motor: It is one of the most efficient motors ever contrived.
It spins at a staggering 10,000 revolutions per
minute. It can
stop within a quarter of a turn, and immediately spin in the
opposite direction at 10,000 rpm.
At less than a couple of microns in length (a micron
is one millionth of a meter), it is too small to see without
very expensive electron microscopes.
This motor powers the bacterial flagellum, which acts
as a rotary motor to propel the bacteria.
It takes approximately 30 to 35 proteins to form a
functional flagellum. If
we remove a few proteins, we won’t have a flagellum that
rotates at only 5000 rpm, we have a flagellum that doesn’t
at a diagram of the flagellum makes one think
mechanical device that was designed by an intelligent
is one example of irreducible complexity.
Evolutionists have tried to refute this
characterization, but have come up with nothing more than
unproven hypotheses. One
popular argument is that many of the proteins that make up
the flagellum are also found in a cellular pump.
Proponents of this argument contend that this pump
picked up (co-opted) other proteins over time until it
formed the flagellar motor.
This hypothesis is analogous to a tire rolling
through a scrap yard, picking up parts as it rolls until it
forms a car. However,
this argument fails when you consider that many of the
proteins in the flagellum are found nowhere else in nature.
That being the case, they could not have been
co-opted during a gradual process of change.
If anything, the cellular pump evolved from the
flagellar motor, and the motor remains irreducibly complex.
If you pick
it, it will bleed: Scabs
can be a great source of pride for children, or even adults
who are children at heart. A large scab indicates a wound suffered in action – a fall
from a bicycle, a tumble down a rocky slope, or a skiing
accident on ice-crusted snow.
The larger the scab, the more one can savor telling
the story of its origin, with rights to embellish the story
implicitly given. As
children, we were told to not pick our scabs, but such
advice was akin to “don’t look down,” invariably
producing the result Mom wanted to avoid.
These hardened blood clots are also indicative of an
irreducibly complex system.
While the blood clot itself is relatively simple, the
system that regulates the clotting consists of ten finely
tuned processes. Says,
Behe: “If you make a clot in the wrong place – say, the
brain or lung – you’ll die.
If you make a clot twenty minutes after all the blood
has drained from your body, you’ll die. If the blood clot isn’t confined to the cut, your entire
blood system might solidify, and you’ll die.
If you make a clot that doesn’t cover the entire
length of the cut, you’ll die.
To create a perfectly balanced blood-clotting system,
clusters of protein components have to be inserted all at
rules out a gradualistic Darwinian approach…”
In order to explain how blood-clotting could have developed
gradually, evolutionists are forced to paint vague word
pictures with generalizations indicating that components
“arose” or “sprang forth.”
No scientists have effectively described how the
components arose, and nobody has performed experiments to
show empirically how this gradual development might have
the issue of how animals kept from bleeding to death while
blood-clotting processes evolved is problematic for the
evidence points toward a creator, rather than evolution.
are many more examples of irreducible complexity in biology,
including aspects of protein transport, closed circular DNA,
electron transport, cilia, photosynthesis, transcription
regulation, and much more.
However, the examples given above are enough to show
that Darwin’s theory of slow, successive changes fails to
pass the acid test. Do
irreducibly complex systems prove the existence of God?
No, of course not.
However, they are a major hurdle for Darwinian
evolution, the pet theory of those who seek to eliminate God
as the Creator of life.
Good scientists will not allow pre-conceived notions
to taint their work, and evolutionists will wag a finger at
creationists and intelligent design proponents and accuse
them of biased research.
However, evolutionists eliminate the possibility of a
supernatural Creator at the outset, and discard evidence
that points strongly toward design in nature.
While almost every scientist will have a personal
bias, the evolutionists are most profoundly known for
letting their bias influence their work, rather than
objectively following the facts to their most logical
men and women on their humanist campaign of junk science
will eventually learn the error of their ways, and they will
be found without excuse: “For since the creation
of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power
and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood
from what has been made, so that men are without excuse….
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and
exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to
look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles”
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (New
York: New York University Press, sixth edition, 1998),
Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Michigan:
Zondervan, 2004), p. 197.
Ibid., p. 210.
TO EVOLUTION MAIN PAGE