The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (16 page)

One of the best examples of a bodily organ that is irreducibly
complex is the eye.18 Charles Darwin himself dealt with the eye
in a chapter called "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication" in On the Origin ofSpecies. He was no doubt hoping to
deflect criticism from mid-nineteenth century biologists who
would argue that the eye in all its complexity could not have
come about gradually through natural selection. In his book,
Darwin conceded that he was unsure how the eye evolved. He
suggested that in view of the wide variety of eyes seen in modern organisms (some just detect light, others can focus on objects),
there may have been a gradual evolutionary pathway that began
with a light-sensitive patch of skin to an eye that could focus.'
His basic contention was that the eye in its earliest development
must have been beneficial to the organism in some small way
(heightening its survival rate against predatory animals) so that
natural selection maintained and continued to develop it in future
generations of that organism.2° This line of argument seemed
to keep some of the critics at bay-at least for the time being.

Today, however, all of this seems like wishful thinking.2' The
more we study the eye, the greater the difficulty of believing
that the eye could ever have come about as a result of natural
selection. A piece-by-piece development of this incredibly
complex organ-resulting from infinitesimally small Darwinian
improvements over an unimaginably long period of time, requiring untold thousands of random positive mutations-requires
far more faith than the creationist position.

Consider the following technical description of the eye:

The essential parts of the eye are enclosed in a tough
outer coat, the sclerotic, to which the muscles moving
it are attached, and which in front changes into the
transparent cornea. A little way back of the cornea, the
crystalline lens is suspended, dividing the eye into two
unequal cavities, a smaller one in front filled with a
watery fluid, the aqueous humor, and larger one behind
filled with a clear jelly, the vitreous humor. The sclerotic is lined with a highly pigmented membrane, the
choroid, and this in turn is lined in the back half of
the eyeball with the nearly transparent retina, in which
the fibers of the optic nerve ramify. The choroid in front
is continuous with the iris, which has a contractile
opening in the center, the pupil, admitting light to the
lens which brings the rays to a focus and forms an image upon the retina, where the light, falling upon delicate
structures called rods and cones, causes them to stimulate the fibers of the optic nerve to transmit visual
impressions to the brain.22

I do not know what strikes your mind as you read this
description. But to me, the idea that the eye evolved by random
processes is beyond credulity. The description sounds like an
incredibly knowledgeable engineer planned the eye from beginning to end. Certainly the ability of the eye to focus on different objects at different distances alone is a complex procedure
that seems impossible to explain by natural selection. As well,
the ability of the eye to work in perfect and instant synergistic
harmony with the brain to facilitate seeing also seems an impossible task for natural selection to have accomplished.

Against evolutionary theory, Phillip Johnson observes that
the initial steps toward a new bodily function such as seeing
with an eye would provide virtually no advantage to an animal
unless the various parts of the eye required for seeing appeared
at the same time.23 And if the initial steps toward a new bodily
function provided no advantage, one must assume natural selection would weed such initial steps out of the body. Keep in
mind that natural selection is purposeless and unguided and
cannot know the end result of these initial steps. How would
the various parts of the eye know how to assemble themselves
over a very long period of time in order to attain the function
of seeing?

Understandably, Darwin once commented that contemplating the complexity of the eye gave him "a cold shudder."24
But it is not the eye alone that should give Darwin a shudder,
for indeed, the bodies of human beings and various animals are
loaded with similar complex organs that give every evidence of
design. Another good example is the wing.

How did the wing evolve? Evolutionists try to argue that
the body appendage (a small flap or web) that would one day
become a wing must have served some useful purpose for the
initial animal so that natural selection preserved it for future
generations. Richard Dawkins suggests that perhaps the small
flap helped the animal to jump farther than it could before or
perhaps catch some air to help it to avoid breaking its neck in
the event of a fall.25 Whatever the purpose, it was allegedly
enough-even though slight at the beginning-to give the creature an advantage in its fight for survival. As long periods of
time passed, the flap or web supposedly developed so that flight
eventually became possible.

Again, this seems to be wishful thinking. John Whitcomb
observes that even if a creature produced such an appendage
(a web or a flap), natural selection would likely weed it out as
a useless body part long before the animal had the capability
of flying. The problem is that mutations only bring about one
tiny change at a time, and the development of a complex body
part like a wing would require untold thousands of random positive mutations. How would natural selection, at each minimal
step along the way, know whether to keep each small mutational
change or breed it out of the species? How would natural selection recognize the worth of a single mutation during a long
process of multiple mutations, awaiting the eventual arrival of
a complex body part like a wing?26

Dawkins' explanation is unconvincing. The initial small web
would have likely been so small and insignificant that it would
not have sufficient aerodynamic qualities to catch enough air
to break a fall or enable an animal to jump farther. And growing a small web or flap is not all that is required to fly. Indeed,
both the bodily structure of the entire animal (such as developing new, highly coordinated muscles on the side of the body)
and the internal instincts of the (ground) animal must change in order for it to fly.27 In view of all the variables involved, natural selection simply cannot account for the origin of the wing.

The term "black box" is a scientific phrase used to describe
a system that does interesting things but that no one can
explain.' (To many laypeople, the computer is like a black box
because it does interesting things, but we have no idea how it
works on the inside.29) The workings of the system remain utterly
mysterious, for no one can peer into the black box, or if they
can, they do not comprehend what they see. The cell was a black
box for Charles Darwin and nineteenth-century biologists, for
they could not comprehend how it worked. Darwinism emerged
when little scientific knowledge existed about the inner workings of the cell. However, now that scientists have closely examined the cellular black box, the fictional nature of Darwinism
has become apparent.30

Nineteenth-century biologists believed the cell was composed
of simple protoplasm.;' Today, however, we have learned that
the cell contains ultrasophisticated molecular machines." And
in view of the complexity of molecular life, the key question
has become, Can Darwinism account for this complexity? As
noted previously, Darwin himself said that if a complex organ
existed that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," then his theory would break down.
Many people today believe that the existence of complex, information-rich structures at the molecular level cannot be
explained by Darwinism and calls for the existence of an intelligent Designer.33

What kinds of complexity do we witness at the molecular
level? Dembski observes that we witness high-tech molecular
systems that include such hallmarks as "information storage and
transfer; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; selfregulation and feedback loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex arrangements of mutually-interdependent
and well fitted parts that work in concert to perform a function. "31
Sounds complicated. But Dembski's point is that the complexity that we witness at the molecular level is every bit as "hightech" as some of the high-tech electronic gadgets created by man.
These ultrasophisticated molecular machines show just as much
evidence of design as do modern computers.35 Observations at
the molecular level virtually beg for an explanation-an explanation that Darwinism cannot provide .31

In an interview with NPR News, Michael Behe explained
the complexity of cells using transportation metaphors:

What we've discovered in a cell in the past halfcentury or so are quite literally molecular machines,
machines of enormous complexity. There are little
machines in the cell that act as trucks and buses that
take supplies from one side of the cell to the other. And
they use little signposts, and there are garage doors that
open and shut to let the supplies into various com-
partments.37

Behe quite convincingly demonstrates complexity at the
molecular level with his discussion of the ion-powered rotary
engines that turn the whip-like flagella of certain bacteria. He
notes that this complex machinery includes such components
as a rotor, a stator, O-rings, bushings, and a driveshaft.38 He
argues that since multiple independent protein parts are necessary in order for this molecular mechanism to function-and
since the absence of any single component of this mechanism
would cause it not to function-gradualistic natural selection
(through multiple intermediate stages over a long period of time)
could never explain the emergence of such mechanisms. With
a cell it is "all or nothing. "31 The only explanation that makes
sense is that an intelligent Designer is behind such irreducibly complex mechanisms. Such molecular mechanisms must have
been created fully formed, with all parts in place, or else they
would not function.

DNA-an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid-carries
genetic information in the cell and is capable of self-replication.
The volume of information contained in DNA absolutely staggers the mind. As Richard Dawkins put it, "There is enough
information capacity in a single human cell to store the
Encyclopedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times
over."" Put another way, "The amount of information that could
be stored in a pinhead's volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile
of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from Earth
to the Moon, each with a different, yet specific content."" The
relevance to the current debate is obvious. Where did this staggering amount of information-much like computer software
code inside a computer42-come from? Naturalistic evolution
certainly cannot explain it.43 All the evidence points to the existence of a divine programmer.

To expand on the software analogy, Microsoft founder Bill
Gates says that "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far
more advanced than any software we've ever created."44 Computer programs do not write themselves. A programmer is always
involved. Even if you provide plenty of time, a computer program still cannot write itself. The same is true regarding the information in DNA. Somebody had to program that information
into DNA.

I may not have seen the computer programmer write the
word processing software I am now using to write this book,
but I have no doubt that the programmer exists.45 In the same
way, I may not have seen the divine Designer do His work of
programming information into DNA, but I have no doubt that
an intelligent Mind was involved in the process.

So far in this chapter, I have addressed irreducibly complex
organs like the eye and wing, as well as the complexity that we
witness at the molecular level and the staggering volume of information in DNA. Now I want to shift attention to the actual
scientific theory that enables us to detect design in the universe.
Such a scientific theory is important, for the existence of an intelligent Designer is not postulated by design theorists as a religious viewpoint (they do not even explicitly identify the Designer
as God, though that is the obvious implied conclusion).46
Intelligent design theory holds that an intelligent cause is empirically detectable by using a well-defined scientific method. This
method focuses on contingency, complexity, and specification.
These may sound like big words, but this theory is not hard to
grasp.

In a capsule, if something were designed, we would expect
to see evidence of contingency, meaning it did not result from
an automatic, unintelligent process (like natural selection). If
something were designed, we would expect to see evidence that
it was complex enough (with many interacting working parts)
that random chance processes alone would not be able to cause
its existence. If something were designed, we would also expect
to see evidence of specificity-a detailed, precise pattern commonly associated with intelligent causes.47

We might illustrate "specified complexity" this way:

• The letter "A" is specified without being complex.

• The random sequence of letters "AQXRBZN" is complex without being specified.

• The sentence "HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM!"
is both complex and specified. Specified complexity is our
means of empirically detecting design in the universe."

Many scholars from the fields of science and philosophy see
evidences of specified complexity in our universe, which is
perfectly balanced to support life. Jimmy H. Davis and Harry
L. Poe explain that specified complexity is evident in "the
universe's coincidences of having the right atoms, the right molecules, enough time, and enough space for life to occur." They
also see specified complexity "in the earth's coincidences of the
right galaxy type, the location in the galaxy, the type of star,
the earth's distance from the sun, the location of Jupiter, the
size of the moon, and the composition of the earth."49 Just as
a Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified, so different features of our universe are complex and specified.