? ????????????? The? Problem of the Obvious
? ????????????? The? Problem of Reverse Complexity
? ????????????? The? Problem of Irreducibly Complex Systems
? ????????????? The? Problem of Survivability of Intermediates
? ????????????? The? Problem of the Missing Models
? ????????????? The? Problem of First Life
? ????????????? The? Problem of Deleterious Mutations
? ????????????? The? Problem of Mathematical Improbability
? ????????????? The? Problem of Cosmology
The Problem of the Obvious
??? The question of evolution versus creation is fundamentally about this question:
Is life the result of random chance, or is life the? result of specific intelligent
design for a purpose, by a magnificent ?Creator?
??? On a very elementary level, one is faced with the? obvious?that there at
least appears to be intelligent design. Order and? design surround us. Famous
evolutionist Richard Dawkins in his 1986 book The? Blind Watchmaker acknowledges
this problem when he admits, "Biology? is the study of complicated things that
give the appearance of having been? designed for a purpose." (7,? pg. 76)
??? When looking at rocks near the bank of a stream one can obviously tell the
difference between a rock that has been randomly formed by? the erosion of sand
and water, and an arrowhead. One is the product of? natural processes; the other
is the product of intelligent design.
??? If one asks an evolutionist if the watch he is wearing? created itself,
he will say no. Such a conclusion is obvious. But biological? systems are vastly
more complex than a watch. It should be equally obvious? that a hand, or an
eye, or even an amoeba must be designed.
??? Likewise, when one sees a bird’s nest, everyone naturally assumes that there
is a bird that built it. The existence of a computer? demands a computer designer.
Creation demands a creator.
The Problem of Reverse Complexity
?? Biochemist Michael Behe wrote a book in 1996? entitled Darwin’s Black Box,
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The book is a landmark work on the issue
??? In the book, Behe explains that the theory of evolution was formulated on
an assumption that life was built on levels from simple to? complex. That is,
the earliest forms of life were simple, and more and more? complexity was added
as the evolutionary process continued. Further, this? assumption said that modern cellular
life is simple, and that complex beings? were merely combinations of simple
cells. But since the invention of electron microscopes in the 1950s, we have
been able to look into the cell and see? that this assumption, which is fundamental
to evolution, is incorrect.
??? A single simple cell contains as much data as all the? individual letters
in the world’s largest library?that’s about a trillion? bits of information.
(10,? pg. 110) We are overwhelmed and awed at chemical coding devices, nucleotides,?
genomes, neural transmitters, ribosomes, and the other discoveries, which demonstrate
the magnificence of the cell. Life at the microbiological level? is incredibly
The Problem of Irreducibly Complex Systems
?? Behe further explains that life at the cellular? level is not merely complex,
but "irreducibly complex." He explains? the idea this way. Take a mousetrap.
The trap is actually made up of several parts that must function together?a
platform, a bait catch, a spring, a? hammer, and a holding bar. Each component
is necessary for the trap to work.? But all of these parts must be present in
the correct way, at the correct? strength, at the same time, etc., for the trap
to function. A partially? complete mousetrap is not partially workable?it is not
workable at all.
??? All parts of a complex system would have to have developed simultaneously.
The problem for evolution is this, the theory is based on? minute independent
mutations which do not have a designed plan. But the very? existence of complex
systems, with dependent parts, severely challenges the? theory. Could independent,
random activity produce irreducibly complex systems?
??? In his book, Behe details the chemistry of several complex organic systems,
including blood clotting, cilia, flagella, and immune? systems. Each system
is delicately interrelated and complex. So complex, in? fact, that given our
modern knowledge of biochemistry, evolution becomes? intellectually untenable,
if not impossible.
??? A flagellum, for example, consists of numerous specialized? and interrelated
parts, working together as a tiny machine. Such molecular? machines defy a Darwinian
explanation.??? Another illustration? given by Behe is an animal trap found
in the woods. The trap consists of a? small tree bent down to form a spring mechanism.
At the top end of the tree? is a rope to catch the prey. And there is a release
mechanism allowing the? trap to spring when an animal sets foot in it. If you
see such a trap in the woods, you could only conclude that it was intelligently
designed, not a? result of accidental processes.
??? Or consider the human brain. The total number of connections in the human
brain is around a thousand million. Our three pound brain can? think, plan,
and contemplate the mysteries of the universe. Its memory can? retrieve a name
that has been stored for 50 years. How could the human brain? have been created
by lifeless matter without the aid of any kind of? supernatural intelligence?
One is free to believe what he wants, but we? submit that neither common sense
nor analysis supports the idea that complex? living systems created themselves from
nothing by chance.
The Problem of Survivability of Intermediates
??? A major reason irreducibly complex systems create such a challenge for evolution
is the problem of survivability of intermediate life? forms. Evolution says
that by a process of minute changes over very long? periods of time, organisms
were built up. But evolution requires that? organisms with each minute change
survive, that is, the change must have? survival value. Darwin himself stated:
"Natural selection can act only? by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally
small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being."
??? Looking at each component of the mousetrap example, one can understand that
there is no survival value of each individual component apart? from the complete
system. Further, for the system to function, all components? must be there together.
If even one is missing, or is not an adequate size? and shape, the organism won’t
work. If the mousetrap were a living system, to? have evolved, each component
as it developed would have had to have? "waited" patiently on the development
of the other components. But? without a master plan, a "design" if you will,
they would not have? waited?they would have died.
??? In the case of a living organism, the? "intermediate" components most likely
would have been detrimental? to survival. For example, in blood clotting, the
mechanism is extremely? delicate. Too much clotting or too little clotting and
the organism dies. An intermediate system with either too much or too little clotting
would not have? the necessary survival value to carry on the "experiment" to
try to? find the precise combination. The evolutionary process would have aborted.
??? The concept of irreducible complexity is easily understood? in large systems.
Evolutionists suggest, for example, that an
animal’s forelimbs evolved into
wings. But that process would have had intermediate? life forms that became
awkward for climbing or grasping long before they? became useful for gliding,
thus placing the hypothetical intermediate? creature at a serious disadvantage,
not at an advantage for survival.
??? Gary Parker, a biologist (and former evolutionist), uses? the example of
a woodpecker. (14,? pgs. 56-61) He explains that a woodpecker needs a combination
of? adaptations?a heavy-duty skull, a tough bill, shock absorbing tissues, a
long? sticky tongue, and nerve and muscle coordination. The bird might have all of
the other features, but without the heavy?duty skull, for example, it’s skull?
would collapse when it hammers wood with the tremendous force that it uses.?
There would be no survival value of the intermediate form of woodpecker, so?
no offspring would be produced to continue the process of evolution to a "completed"
??? If you have ever examined a model of a human knee in a doctor’s office,
you must be impressed with the combination of cartilage,? muscle, ligaments,
and bone that in a precise combination allow the knee to? work. If just one
ligament was too weak, the whole thing would fail, and the? survivability of the
animal would be in question.
??? For another example, the human eye is so complex that? Darwin himself, even
with his limited knowledge of chemistry, saw the human? eye as an enormous problem
for his theory. The eye is capable of focusing at? various distances and of
controlling the amount of light it receives from? total darkness to bright sunlight
while delivering images in living color. A? sophisticated camera could only
exist as a result of intelligent designers? and builders. Surely we must concede
the same of an even more complex eye.
??? Evolutionist F. Hitching was still pondering in a 1982 book entitled The
Neck of the Giraffe, "Is it really plausible that thousands upon thousands of
lucky chance mutations happened coincidentally so? that the lens and the retina,
which cannot work without each other, evolved? in synchrony? What survival value
can there be in an eye that doesn’t? see?" (1,? pgs. 36-39) And these men didn’t
even consider in their statements the? chemical complexity of the eye. It takes
Behe two pages in his book just to describe the biochemistry of vision. (1,?
??? Molecular biologist Michael Denton makes an analogy with language. He explains
that in sentence structure, it quickly becomes obvious? that there are limits
in getting from one sentence that makes sense to? another by changing one letter
at a time. For example, how can one get from? "He sat on the mat" to "He stood
on the mat"? To do so,? you would have to go through four changes, each of which
would make no sense.? (The first change might be "He stt on the mat.")
??? While complex systems can undergo a certain limited degree? of functional
change, there is invariably a limit. "He sat on the? mat" can get to "He sat
on the cat" in one step, but it cannot? get to "He stood on the mat" in single
steps required by evolution.? (2,? pgs. 87-91)
The Problem of the Missing Models
?? Behe challenges the scientific community for its? lack of mechanistic models
for evolution. He says that no models have been? built to explain the details
of the evolution of specific systems.
??? For example, he points out that in the past several? decades, probably ten
thousand papers have been published on cilia. Yet not a? single credible paper
has even attempted to guess at an evolutionary? mechanism for the system. The
literature of evolutionary biology is typically? little more than fuzzy word pictures.
For example, he says all that? scientists can come up with when describing blood
clotting is that the tissue? factor "appears," fibrinogen is "born," antiplasmin?
"arises," a cross-linking protein "is unleashed," and so? forth. (1,? pgs. 67-69, 93) He
flatly states that, "The fact is, no one on earth has? the vaguest idea how
the coagulation came to be." (1,? pg. 97)
??? Behe further exclaims that "In fact, none of the? papers published in JME
[the Journal of Molecular Evolution] over the entire? course of its life as
a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a? complex biochemical
system might have been produced in a gradual,? step-by-step Darwinian fashion…
The very fact that none of these problems? is even addressed, let alone solved,
is a very strong indication that? Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding
the origin of complex biochemical systems." (1,? pg. 176) He makes the quite dramatic
claim that, "There has never been a? meeting, or a book, or a paper on details
of the evolution of complex? biochemical systems." (1,? pg. 179)
??? In a 1997 radio interview, Behe said that his public? challenges to the
scientific world to come up with specific models have been unmet, confirming
that none exist! Even the nonscientist must begin to ask,? "Is the theory of
evolution scientific or is it something else?"
The Problem of First Life
?? The failure of scientists to produce life in the? test tube is notable. After
a flurry of excitement of the possibility in the 1960s, the following quote
expresses the current state of affairs. It was? written by Klaus Dose, a prominent
biochemist working in the field:
"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the? fields
of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of? the
immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to? its
solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and? experiments in
the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of? ignorance." (1,? pg.
168) Modern science has confirmed the principle of biogenesis,? that life only
comes from life.
??? Concerning the prebiotic soup from which life supposedly arose, there is
no reason to believe that it even existed or that life has a? tendency to emerge
even when the right chemicals are present. Modern? chemistry now indicates that,
in fact, organic compounds produced on the? early earth would be subject to chemical
reactions making them unsuitable for? constructing life. As such, the scientific
evidence continues to mount? against evolution. (5,? pgs. 102-112; 14,? pgs.
17-38; and 2,? pgs. 249-273)
??? But the question must be asked, if scientists actually do? produce life
in the lab, would that prove evolution or would it prove the importance of intelligent
interference? We submit that it would merely? demonstrate the latter. For now,
the world waits for evolutionists to show us? some evidence for their theory.
The Problem of Deleterious Mutations
??? Evolution relies heavily on mutation to produce? improvements in organisms
through random chance. But, the evidence doesn’t support this. Instead of improvements,
mutations tend to show deterioration.? Indeed, 99.99 percent of mutations are
harmful, even lethal. As explained by? Parker in his book (14,? pgs. 95-104),
almost every mutation we know is identified by the disease or? abnormality it
causes, not its benefits. For example, in humans hemophilia is? a mutation of
a clotting factor. Tay-Sach’s Disease is apparently a mutation? in the gene for
producing an enzyme crucial to brain function.
??? Indeed, human beings are subje
ct to some 3,500 mutational disorders. The
reason they don’t show up more often is that we have two sets? of genes, and
the good set tends to cover up the bad set.
??? About the only example ever given of a positive mutation is sickle-cell
anemia. People carrying sickle-cell hemoglobin are resistant to? malaria. But
sickle-cell anemia is a disease; it kills people. Further, the? mutation does
not produce genetic information that leads to a new species. It? is thus an inadequate
example to support evolutionary theory.
??? Bad mutations are 1,000 times more prevalent than good? ones. To believe
that mutations are the mechanism for evolution is comparable? to saying that
standing in front of an x-ray machine long enough will lead to? positive health
benefits. Or, since mutations are just mistakes, you could? say evolution is
comparable to a really bad typist who is re-typing a dime romance novel, and
produces a Shakespearean play by chance. It is no more? likely that random changes
(from whatever cause) in genetic information will? benefit an organism, than random
changes in a TV’s circuitry will make a? better TV.
??? Pierre Grasse, considered the "dean of French zoologists,"? said that mutations
are "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median? position; a swing to the
right, a swing to the left, but no final? evolutionary effect." Further, he
says, mutations are not complementary,? nor are they cumulative." That is, they
don’t add up to anything. While? Grasse is still looking for a mechanism for
evolution, he admits that? mutation?selection cannot be it. (14, pgs. 104-110)
??? Evolution is about how new organisms developed via a? greater quantity and
quality of genetic information. We suggest that? the notion that mutations could
even theoretically produce a greater quantity and quality of genetic information
approaches the level of? absurdity.
??? Lastly, it can be argued that the existence of mutations presupposes creation.
Mutations are only changes in genes that already exist.? Mutation, therefore,
is a result, not a cause.
??? As explained by Phillip Johnson, "The only reason to? believe that mutations
of the kind and quantity needed for blind watchmaker? evolution to actually
occur is that the theory requires them." (7,? pgs. 80-81)
The Problem of Mathematical Improbability
?? Many mathematicians have looked at probability? science for help with evolution.
Could it have occurred by chance?
??? Below are some numbers. To illustrate the magnitude of? these numbers, for
the sake of comparison, be aware that the number of electrons in the universe
is believed to be 1080.
??? Mathematician William Dembski calculated that if the probability of something
occurring is less than one in 10150, it has no possibility of happening by chance
at any time by any conceivable? process throughout all of cosmic history. He
further estimates that the? probability of evolving the first cell is no better than
one in 104,478,146.? (Source: Impact magazine, November 1999)
??? In regard to the universe occurring by chance, researcher? Hugh Ross explains
that there are actually two sets of odds that interrelate:? first, the unique
characteristics that must be fashioned to explain the? earth’s capacity to support
life, and second, that life could arise even on a? suitably configured planet
by random chance. He calculates the odds for life? as remote as 1 in 10100,000,000,000.
(Source: Facts and Faith? magazine, Second Quarter 1998)
??? Yet some say that, well, given enough time, evolution could occur. But it
would be like saying that putting the parts to a computer in a? washing machine,
and given enough time that they will assemble themselves? into a functioning
computer. It won’t happen?no matter how much time.
??? Mathematician/astronomer Fred Hoyle put it this way. He? said that the probability
of evolution creating the living world by chance is? like believing that "…a
tornado sweeping through a junk yard might? assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials
therein." (See Evolution? from Space, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasingne, J.M.
Dent & Sons,? 1981).
??? Denton concludes that probability science comes "very? close to a formal
disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what? strange capacity
do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are? apparently obeyed by
all analogous complex systems?" (2,? pg. 316)
??? Evolutionists have been faced with such figures for many years. If they
could come up with a number within the realm of possibility,? they would be
crowing about it. But they have not been able to do so. Life? was designed;
it did not evolve. The correctness of this conclusion is the? inverse of the probability
that eliminated evolution, that is, 104,478,296? to one.
??? There is one thing we can say further. Given the? probabilities against
evolution, if evolution did occur, it would constitute? a miracle?convincing
proof of God’s existence.
The Problem of Cosmology
??? Cosmology is the study of the principles of the universe.? The laws of physics,
assuming no outside interference by God, predict a? uniform and homogenous universe.
This is based on the uniformity of the gas? that the evolutionists believe originally
filled the universe. But instead of? uniformity, the universe is lumpy, with
areas of emptiness and areas with? galaxies. In fact, the mere existence of
galaxies, stars, and planets is a? great puzzle for evolutionists. (3,? pg.
??? There are numerous evidences of apparent fine-tuning of the universe that
suggest intelligent design. Hugh Ross (in the Moreland book? from the resource
list) lists over fifty scientific laws and parameters that? are so tightly precise
that without them life could not exist. These include:? nuclear force constant,
electromagnetic force constant, polarity of the water? molecule, ratio of protons
to electrons, velocity of light, oxygen to? nitrogen ratio in the earth’s atmosphere,
star color, etc. (11,? pgs. 160-168) For example, it has become clear that the
odds of a? life-sustaining universe resulting from the (alleged) Big Bang are
minute. If? the expansion rate after the Big Bang had been one part in a hundred
thousand? million million weaker, the universe would have collapsed. But if it
had been? one part in a million stronger, the universe would have expanded too
rapidly? for stars to form. The Bible says that "The heavens declare the glory
of? God and the firmament showeth his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1). God reveals himself
to us in such clear and convincing ways through the things He has? made, that
the Bible further says that the person who can’t see it is without? excuse.
He is willfully blind. Because of the philosophical position he holds? he is
?seeing what he wants to see and closing his eyes to the rest (Romans? 1).