Evolution and irreducible complexity

In “On the Origin of Species” Darwin admitted that the problem of irreducible complexity would stand as a refutation of his theory. He wrote, “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”. Molecular biology has done just that – shattered his theory. The problem of irreducible complexity is a logical argument about how wholes are constructed from parts. An aggregate structure, like a pile of rocks, can be built up gradually by simply adding one rock at a time. However, an organized structure like a computer processor, is built according to a preexisting plan. Each interlocking piece is structured to contribute to the functioning of the whole. If there is any piece missing, the whole cannot work. The question then is whether living structures are aggregates or organized wholes. This is what science says: Not only on the level of body systems, but also within each tiny cell, living structures are incredibly complex organized wholes. Structures like the tiny string-like flagellum attached like a tail to some bacteria require dozens of precisely tailored, intricately interacting parts, which could not emerge by gradual process, otherwise it would not work. Instead the coordinated parts must somehow appear on the scene all at the same time, combined and coordinated in the right patterns, for the molecular machine to function at all. Biologist David DeRosier in, The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellar Motor, [Cell 93, April 3 1988] wrote, “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human”. Irreducible complexity also exists in the blood clotting system as well as vision. The most reasonable explanation therefore is that the pieces were put together according to a preexisting blueprint, by an intelligent designer. Despite the fact that the evidence points towards an intelligent designer, Darwin’s disciples continue to vehemently defend evolution. One such disciple, Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin says that he is a materialist not because of the facts, but in spite of them. He goes on to insist, “we cannot allow a divine foot in the door”. Huston Smith was therefore right when he said, “Darwinism is supported more by atheistic philosophical assumptions than by scientific evidence”.