The Blog

Behe’s discoveries are fatal for Darwinism. Irreducible complexity means that new life cannot come into existence by the Darwinian method of slight, successive changes over a long period of time.

Darwinism is similar to natural forces-without intellectual intervention-producing a running car and then modifying that irreducible complex engine into successive intermediate engines until those natural forces finally produce a space shuttle.

Darwinists cannot explain the source of the materials to make an engine, much less how any irreducible complex engine came into existence in the first place. Nor can they demonstrate the unintelligent process by which an engine has evolved into the space shuttle while providing propulsion at every intermediate step. This is evident from the complete absence of explanations from Darwinists for how irreducibly complex systems could arise gradually.

Behe exposes the empty claims of Darwinists. “The idea of Darwinian molecular evolution is not based of science. There is no publication in the scientific literature-in journals or books-that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, and biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none that are supported by pertinent experiments and calculations. Since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”

The feeble attempts of Darwinists to deal with irreducible complexity reveals the magnitude of the problem for their theory.

Darwinist Ken Miller has suggested that irreducible complexity is not true because he can show that Behe’s example of irreducible complexity- a mousetrap-is not really irreducibly complex. According to Behe, all five parts of a traditional mousetrap need to be in place at the same time, in working order, for the mouse trap to work. But Miller thinks he can disprove Behe’s point by building a similar mousetrap with only four parts.

First, like a typical Darwinist, Miller ignores the fact that the mousetrap requires intelligence to build. Second, even if those structural changes could somehow be made by mindless processes, the mousetrap would be dysfunctional during the transition period. But for Darwinism to be true, functionality must be maintained at all times because living things cannot survive if their vital organs do not perform their usual function during slow trial-and-error Darwinian transitions. Finally, a mousetrap is only a simply illustration. Living things are immeasurably more complex than a mousetrap. So Behe’s point has not been refuted by an Darwinist.

Personal Reflection:
What problems arises from natural selection attempting to create new life forms?