Irreducible Complexity — Can Design be Falsified?

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.

Interview with Dr. John Baumgardner

John Baumgardner PhD, is geophysicist. Dr. Baumgardner was employed at one of the most prestigious research institutes — Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico. He has developed a 3D computer program called TERRA which models Earth’s plate tectonics. This was such an important and useful program he was interviewed by US & World Report in 1997.

Those who support evolution depend on radiometric dating of rocks to provide evidence that the Earth is 6.4 billion years old. In this interview Jim Bendewald asks Dr. Baumgardner about radiometric dating and the RATE project. The discussion includes the RATE project results which challenge the long ages of Earth’s history. Carbon dating in coal is also discussed as well as carbon in diamonds which should long be gone if Earth is as old as the evolutionists claim.

This was an extremely important research project. It provided empirical data as evidence for a much younger Earth than evolutionists are willing to accept. Therein lies the problem. No matter how clear the data for disproving evolution, those committed to material causes will dismiss the evidence.

Watch this video to learn about the RATE project, understand what is at stake and learn of the RATE results.

Proteins Require Proteins

The purpose of Evidence Press is to produce compelling video and articles to help defend evidence for creation and clarify issues related to evolution. For example, the following 3.5 minute video demonstrates that proteins require hundreds of proteins to make a protein. Logically, if it takes hundreds of proteins to create a protein no amount of time will be enough to create the first proteins! In addition, the proteins must be arranged as protein machines working more efficiently than anything humans have ever devised. Furthermore, the machines require a great deal of energy. The energy comes from ADP being converted to ATP which is a process that is also made up of protein machines.

This is an insurmountable conundrum for evolutionists and it is a simple argument to show to kids. When they see it and hear it, they get it. Suddenly they are skeptics of historical science supporting evolution which assumes evolution is true.

Proteins are essential in the manufacture of proteins.  Therefore, the first proteins could not have come about by natural causes.  The best explanation is design.

Click HERE for the download page. Then click on the Download button.

Rubik’s Cube Biology

Many people think that evolution happens by way of physical accidents. For example, evolutionists will speculate — a bubble forms in the primordial soup making the first cell wall or mitochondria came about by one bacteria swallowing another. Admittedly my statements are simplistic and do not give justice to the evolutionary concepts for abiogenesis.

However, even if one of the above miracles did occur it would be useless without the many lines of code in the DNA for the organism to do it again. The real miracle needs to happen in the DNA. In order for the bubble to appear again or the mitochondria to exist again in the next cell there must be information for the new feature in the DNA. Replicating the DNA is essential. So first the instructions must exist in the DNA and secondly, the information must get carried on to the next generation in such a way that proteins are made to produce the bubble or mitochondria.

For secular scientists to advance this type of narrative is extremely disingenuous. They know it would not work but it is good enough for fooling students into believing such non-sense.

Review this video to see that information in DNA is key to understanding changes in biology. And the best explanation for the information in DNA is Design.

Designed or Not Designed

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