Should We Follow the Evidence Wherever it Leads?

Professor Michael Behe in his essay Irreducible Complexity clearly is on the right track when it comes to origins when he states: “I think science should follow the evidence wherever it seems to lead.”1 Back in 1859 when Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of Species our knowledge of molecular biology was almost zero. In Darwin’s day the human cell was basically a black box – a mere blob of protoplasm. Back then it was so much easier to defend his theory of evolution since we knew basically nothing about the human cell and thus his theory on the surface had some logical merit. But as science progresses we often have to overturn time honored theories as new information makes the theory less plausible if not downright silly.

For example, for over 2,000 years we believed that infectious disease and epidemics were due to unfortunate weather conditions. It was reasoned that the air could turn bad and that, since many people would breathe the same air, they would get sick. Since then, others have believed that the air arising from swamps or refuse heaps could also contribute to the spread of disease. It was not until the 1800’s that men such as Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch determined that very tiny organisms called germs were what caused diseases. It took scientists 2,000 years to fully disregard their old ways. 

Now over 150 years since the Origin of Species and Darwin’s theory of evolution we now know that a human cell is far more complex than a mere blob of protoplasm. In fact, thanks to molecular biology, we now know that a human cell is a fantastically complex and sophisticated miniature factory with dozens of ultra-high tech subsystems that perform amazingly complex biochemical operations in mere nanoseconds. I dare say that if Darwin were alive today and were able to view the human cell under a microscope he would be blown away. Darwin, I believe, knew in his heart that the human eye could never have evolved when he stated: “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”2 If he also knew how ultra-complex a human cell was he would no doubt conclude that it too could never have evolved. I believe that when the light of knowledge shines on a heart that lives in ignorance (such as Darwin’s knowledge of the human cell) that we often have to totally reevaluate our ideas, theories and conclusions. 

I also believe that Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity is right on. But just what is irreducible complexity? Biochemist Michael Behe in his groundbreaking book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, introduces us to the concept of irreducible complexity.  Behe convincingly makes the case that there are certain organs, systems and processes in life, like the eye, that could not have come into existence through natural selection since they are irreducibly complex, that is “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.”3

So, let’s take the example of the human eye. The next time you open your eyes, try to imagine how sight works. The first thing that may come to mind is that sight functions on autopilot. You see without thinking or doing anything. If you have some knowledge of science you probably are aware that engineering, chemistry, and information processing functions are all occurring simultaneously. Another thought is that seeing involves light, color, motion and perspective. In reality the human eye is far more sophisticated than any human camera ever invented. In addition, an eye is made up of protein molecules that in turn form all of the complex structures that we are all familiar with. The cornea, iris, retina, optic nerve, and many other complex sub-structures make up the human eye.

The reason the human eye is irreducibly complex is that you need all of the eye parts present simultaneously or else no sight takes place. For example, an eye missing a retina will not allow sight to take place. And since natural selection would eliminate any eye parts before an eye would be fully formed since a retina by itself would be useless for sight without all of the other eye parts simultaneously present, the retina would be eliminated. As a result, sight will never come about since a human eye will never be formed.

And we could list many other substances that are irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity cries out to follow the evidence wherever it leads. If Darwin understood just how fantastically complex the eye and the mechanism of human sight are I believe he would have abandoned his theory long ago.

Today, in my opinion, it takes far more faith to believe in Darwinian evolution than in divine creation. I also believe that in the next 50 years we will discover even more complexity in the human cell that will take us even farther away from Darwinian evolution and closer to the God of the universe.

---

1Michael J. Behe, Irreducible Complexity (Essay in Debating Design, Edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse) (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 357

2 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection. p. 155.

3 Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 39.