Evolution, Creation, and the Bible: Part 5
In On the Origin of Species, Darwin set out grounds for refutation of his theory. In essence, he said if someone could prove that a certain organism or feature could not come to be by a gradual, step-by-step process, his theory would fail entirely. Taking Darwin’s challenge, Michael Behe developed the idea that he calls “irreducible complexity.” He defines it this way:
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. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there were such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.[1]
In his text critiquing Darwinism, Behe sets out to present several irreducibly complex biological systems, including the cilium, the process of clotting blood, the sending of messages in the body via proteins, and antibodies. Ten years after Behe released his text that rocked the biological world, not a single person has responded with a real proposal for an evolutionary mechanism of his so-called irreducibly complex systems. James Shapiro of the University of Chicago wrote, “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”[2] In reponse, Behe wrote in the afterward of his 2006 edition of Darwin’s Black Box, “Ten years later, nothing has changed.”[3]
The challenges for current evolutionists are many. While surely research in the area of macroevolution should continue, it seems that teaching school children the evolutionary tree of life as sheer fact is walking on very shaky ground. With no experimental proof of macroevolution, a fossil record that presents more problems than it provides proofs, and no real responses to Behe’s idea of irreducible complexity to date, it seems that teaching T.H. White’s The Once and Future King as history might be a better bet.
[1] Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. 2nd ed. New York: Free P, 2006. 39.
[2] Shapiro, J. “In the Details…What?” National Review. 16 Sept. 1996. 62-65. See also Harold, F. The Way of the Cell. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001.
[3] Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. 2nd ed. New York: Free P, 2006. 271.
Leave a Reply