Irreducible Complexity — Can Design be Falsified?

By Leave a Comment

Irreducible Complexity
by Jim Bendewald

Can Design by an Intelligence be Falsified?

Evolutionists claim that Intelligent Design (ID) does not have hypotheses that are falsifiable. They then conclude that ID is pseudoscience. This is a very serious claim, and it is prolific in the pro-evolutionary media as a foundational argument against ID.

What is a falsifiable hypothesis? A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested. Falsifiable means that the explanation must be stated in such a way that it could be proven false. For example, someone might make the hypothesis that, “It never snows in July.” This statement can be proven false by evidence that it does snow in the southern hemisphere in July.

Does ID have falsifiable hypotheses? Yes, and they correspond to the evolutionary falsifiable hypotheses. For example, Charles Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species, “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.” Therefore, if it could be shown that an organism could not evolve by numerous, successive, slight modifications, it would reveal Darwin’s theory to be false. Note: Natural selection is an effective theory for explaining biological change within a kind; thus natural selection is not being challenged here. However, the following demonstrates that evolution theory is false.

Michael Behe, the author of Darwin’s Black Box, coined the term irreducible complexity. It describes systems which have no functional advantage unless several components are in place. Behe used the analogy of a mouse trap. In order for the mouse trap to catch mice it must have all five components: a platform, hammer, spring, sensitive catch and bar. Behe uses several biological examples including the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting and cilia for illustrating irreducibly complexity. Evolutionists go through extraordinary mental contortions in lengthy articles trying to explain away the problem of irreducibly complexity in these examples. They provide no empirical evidence to support their imaginative views, while leaving horrendous gaps along the way in their “just so” stories.

So, if in fact ID is just nonsense and does not provide falsifiable hypotheses, then why do evolutionists go through such extraordinary lengths trying to explain away examples of irreducibly complexity? The fact that they have lengthy articles designed to dispute irreducible complexity only demonstrates that it is falsifiable.

An irreducibly complex hypothesis can be stated falsifiable: “Are there irreducibly complex biological systems which would refute numerous-successive-slight-modifications evolution?” This is a testable hypothesis; evidence on both sides has been presented. It is incorrect to say that ID is pseudoscience and does not provide falsifiable hypotheses.

The cell is the ultimate example of irreducible complexity. My book Evolution Shot Full of Holes with co-author Frank Sherwin, contains a chapter on the topic of the origin of life. The cell is an interdependent functional city. We state, “The cell is the most detailed and concentrated organizational structure known to humanity. It is a lively microcosmic city, with factories for making building supplies, packaging centers for transporting the supplies, trucks that move the materials along highways, communication devices, hospitals for repairing injuries, a massive library of information, power stations providing usable energy, garbage removal, walls for protection and city gates for allowing certain materials to come and go from the cell.” The notion of the theoretical first cell arising by natural causes is a perfect example of irreducibly complexity. Life cannot exist without many numerous interdependent complex systems, each irreducibly complex on their own, working together to bring about a grand pageant for life to exist.

Copied from a previous Evidence Press post.

Georgia Purdom Discusses the Cell

By Leave a Comment

Charles Darwin thought of cells as “simple”. With better microscopes and scientific experimentation we have come to see a whole world of complexity within the cell. The complex cell is in many ways like a city.

In this video, Jim Bendewald interviews Dr. Georgia Purdom on staff with Answers in Genesis.  The discussion includes a fascinating look at the various organelles and functions of the cell. In addition to the interview are wonderful illustrations using animated graphics. In this video you will see for yourself the immense complexity built into our cells. While evolution predicts simplicity and requires simplicity, the reality is the cells contain unfathomable complexity inferring design as the best explanation.

Why Science Favors Creation and Design

By Leave a Comment

The world is quickly changing in favor of creation and design. Science and technology is on our side not on the side of evolution.

Welcome to the Future

To support this claim consider the predictions of evolution. The theory predicts that life began as a primitive “simple” cell and evolved into more complex organisms on up to humans. Darwin called it descent with modification. Evolutionists do not have a coherent explanation for the chemical origin of life. On the other side, the law of biogenesis states that life only comes from life, for example, puppies come from dogs – we see this everyday. It is interesting to note that biogenesis is a law but it is seldom discussed in text books while abiogenesis is speculative and is frequently discussed in basic biology text books.

Another prediction of evolution was that the universe was eternal, it was always there. Then Edwin Hubble messed things up using a telescope he revealed red shift. Even Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicted that the universe had a beginning. Einstein himself did not want to believe it because the universe with a beginning is a very big problem for naturalists. Where did the universe or singularity come from? Physics tells us every cause must have an effect.

The universe having a beginning is exactly what the Bible says in Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” So again reality did not conform to evolutionary ideas while it fits perfectly with the prediction of creation. God being eternal and all powerful is outside of time and space. He created the laws of the universe so He is not bound by the laws. God created it all.

Is there more evidence for creation? Yes. If you were a biologist living in the age of Charles Darwin you would have believed that the simple cell was indeed “simple”. That is what chemical evolution predicts — it is the notion that chemicals in nature have the capability to combine naturally to form life. But with better scientific instruments the simple cell idea is now extinct. So there is another prediction of evolution that has failed and is again a massive problem for evolutionists. How do you get the first proteins made (by natural causes) when numerous protein machines are required in order to make proteins? It appears that life does not just look designed — it was designed.

Is there more evidence for creation? Yes. For decades evolutionists touted the human genome was made up of 98.5% junk. Why was it there according to evolutionists? It was the evolutionary leftovers from evolutions’ trial and error. DNA is the best evidence for evolution, evolutionists claimed. Richard Dawkins wrote about Junk DNA in his best-selling book, The selfish Gene. But in recent years through the ENCODE project it was revealed to the world that Junk DNA is not junk but treasure troves of codes yet to be understood. But the damage from evolutionary thinking was done. As written in Scientific American Feb. 12, 2007 What is Junk DNA and What is it Worth? “Although very catchy, the term “junk DNA” repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years.” Here is an example where the evolution prediction is not only wrong it prevented important medical research.

Is there more evidence for creation? Yes. But this article is getting too long. I would like to discuss the topic of Mitochondrial Eve using mitochondrial DNA and how it too was wrong. I would like to discuss the so-called 1% difference between humans and chimps. Not only have the results been wrong the means for getting their results are ultra-extremely biased for finding similarity. I would like to discuss the hyper complexity of the DNA structure. I would like to discuss the nature of the code within DNA which is expressed in five ever more complex levels.

As I stated in the beginning, the evidence for creation and design is growing and is very exciting for those who believe in God.

Designed or Not Designed

By Leave a Comment

When talking to people on campus I often point out that we see design everywhere. Our clothing, our electronics, our cars and buildings are all designed. This is human based design, demonstrating that design exists. That is not debatable.

When we look at bacteria under a microscope, we see an organism that is more complex than anything humans have ever designed. Humans have never designed a living, reproducing organism, large or microscopic (which would be many times more difficult than something we can clearly see). Se we know living organism are super complex but scientists in secular universities assume they came about by natural causes. Design is not even considered!

So why is only evolution or “not design” taught in public schools? It is because policy makers and educators are committed to material and this is based on their belief, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, that life came about by natural causes alone.

Yes, natural selection happens; viruses, bacteria and species change, that is not in dispute. But to say that the common descent of humans from ape-like creatures is some sort of undisputed fact is a world gone mad. While changes within a species are obvious, just look at the varieties of dogs by artificial selection, the evidence for common descent from simpler species to more-complex species is vacant.

The evolution only dogmatism that promotes early-life-to-humans evolution (common descent) lacks scientific evidence, it’s illogical and it needs to be allowed to be challenged in the public schools! After all, modern scientific evidence shouts for design.

Duplicity

By Leave a Comment