DOUG AX, BIOLOGY, AND THE BELEAGUERED THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Even from a biological perspective, evolution is unable to bridge the gap between reality and any naturalistic explanation of it. In his new book, Undeniable: How Biology confirms our Intuition that Life is Designed, Douglas Ax argues that “functional coherence,” like “irreducible complexity,” argues against gradualistic evolution. How? Ax argues that many coordinated biological components have to be in place before the organism can have an “adaptive advantage,” before a trait can confer any survival value or even survive. Ax provides the example of photosynthesis within a single celled organism:

·       The photosynthetic apparatus in relatively simple single-celled organisms called cyanobacteria has hundreds of molecular parts that are precisely positioned to enable the apparatus to gather photons from the sun and convert their energy into the chemical energy in sugar. The photosystem’s overall function depends on an extensive hierarchy of subfunctions, all “contributing in a coordinated way to the whole.” (Jonathan Wells, Salvo Magazine, #39, Winter 2016, 45)

Ax concludes that this “makes accidental invention fantastically improbable and therefore physically impossible,” and that these designs “can only come from deliberate, intelligent action.”

Biologist Jonathan Wells observes:

·       Natural selection has never been observed to produce anything more than minor changes within existing species, but higher forms of life contain many more inventions than we find in cyanobacteria. (45)

Ax concludes that because such inventions involve high levels of complex additions, explaining them is like the problem of explaining the origin of life:

·       “Because each new life form amounts to a new high-level invention, the origin of the thousandth new life form is no more explicable in Darwinian terms than the origin of life.”

Consequently, the problems seem to be overwhelming the beleaguered theory of evolution.

WHY MACRO-EVOLUTION IS A FICTION

The atheist Daniel Dennett called Darwinism a corrosive “acid” because of its power to dissolve away competing beliefs. I have found this to be very true of the hundreds of dialogues I have had with “Christian” evolutionists, who have consistently compromised the Bible’s teachings, wherever they clashed with evolution. This has occurred so extensively that their opinions are almost indistinguishable from the secular community.

Because of this, I welcome those who can present reasonable and coherent critiques of this theory. The following is a part of Robert P.Crowner’s critique of evolution:

“Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. in his book What Darwin Didn’t Know points out the incredible complexity of the human body and the interdependence of its parts. He points out many examples in the body that illustrate irreducible complexity:

• “Every significant change in the male’s reproductive system had to have been met with a reciprocal change in the female’s (or vice versa).”[11] 

• “The egg knows when it’s time to ovulate, how to pop out, how to travel through the fallopian tubes, how to receive a single sperm and close out other sperm, and how to eventually implant in the uterus.”[12]

• “A cell resembles a miniature industrial complex that is much more complex than a General Motors or Boeing plant.”[13]

• “The brain can store between 100 trillion and 280 quintillion bits of information in a mere three pounds of matter.”[14]

• “Eyes are like antennae for the brain. Millions of cells lining the interior of each eye function as photochemical receivers, converting light waves into a myriad of electrical impulses that are forwarded at a speed of about 200 miles per hour to the brain. There the impulses are sorted, organized and analyzed in holograph ways. All of this is accomplished in milliseconds.”[15]

• “Many hormones work in parallel or tandem, some compete, and some have double and triple functions.”[16]

• “Every action involves a complex array of interacting nerves, muscles, ligaments, tendons, joints, soft tissues, blood vessels, and bones. Millions to billions of cells work in unison.”[17]

In his chapter “Purposeful Design,” Simmons lists 81 facts that he believes point to design rather than chance as postulated in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Simmons points out that Darwin had little knowledge of genetics, physiology, and conception. So how could his theory still be accepted as valid?”

ARE ORGANS IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX, THEREBY DEFYING DARWINIAN GRADUALISM?

Irreducible complexity is a theory that argues in favor of an intelligent Designer by showing that random mutation and natural selection are unable to account for new organs or structures. Evolution must take place step-by-step and each step must confer a survival advantage. However, to confer this advantage, many new genes must be simultaneously in place to produce any beneficial structure. Richard Kleiss provides the example of blood clotting as an irreducibly complex process:

• Bleeding must be stopped. While the scab is forming…the blood below is making a completely different kind of clot out of blood platelets and protein…Your body increases the flow of blood enriched with white blood cells. These cells not only search out and kill germs, but clean the wound of damaged cellular tissues. Skins cells start to increase the rate at which they make new cells in order to bridge the cut with new skin. Underneath…cells called fibroblasts fill the wound to strengthen the tender new tissue, and then contract to pull the wound closed. Finally, blood vessels and nerves complete their repairs as the fibroblasts position themselves along the lines of stress to prevent further damage.” (A Closer Look at the Evidence)

Without any one of these processes, any cut could cause death. In fact, any structure is irreducibly complex. Atheist Richard Dawkins admits that:

• The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexity could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin’s theory. (The God Delusion, 125)

Darwin himself said as much:

• “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. But I can find no such case.”

Is there any evidence that new organs arise through “slight modifications?” Casey Luskin cites the late biologist, Lynn Margulis, member of the National Academy of Sciences: "new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.” She further explained in a 2011 interview:

• [N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.

Is there any evidence? Apparently none! John C. Lennox quotes several evolutionists to this effect:

• John Maynard Smith, E. Szathmary: “There is no theoretical reason that would permit us to expect that evolutionary lines would increase in complexity with time; there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.” (God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God, 107)

• Siegfried Scherer: “In the whole experimentally accessible domain of microevolution (including research in artificial breeding and in species formation), all variations have certainly remained within the confines of basic types.” ()

• Cell biologist E.J. Ambrose of the University of London argued that it is unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. He then points out that only one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious, so that the chance of five non-deleterious mutations [the minimum necessary for any new function] occurring is 1 in a million billion replications.

This means that every organism will probably die before it adds a new organ! But evolutionists assure us that, eventually, they will come up with a solution.

The Engine of Natural Selection

Darwin had argued that the engine of natural selection built the most complex organs one step at a time, each step conferring an adaptive survival advantage. However, design theorists have argued that this mechanism cannot produce. They countered that any organ or structure is irreducibly complex – that they could not be constructed one step at a time. Instead, many integrated parts had to be present before an organism could derive any profit from the gradual building process.

Michael Behe demonstrated the principle of irreducible complexity by comparing a new beneficial structure with a mouse trap. In order for the mouse trap to be functional and useful, it required a minimum of five parts. Without just one of them, the trap would be of no use.

There are millions examples of irreducible complexity. Arguably, every organ or structure is irreducibly complex. A spider web is a good example of this. Von Vett and Malone write:

• Spiders are capable of producing one of the finest filaments strands known to man. These threads can be 10,000 times thinner than a strand of human hair, yet the silk is five times stronger than an equivalent weight of steel cable. Scientists have yet to learn to synthesize an equally strong artificial silk nor do they know how a spider keeps from clogging its spinnerets as the emerging silk immediately solidifies upon exposure to oxygen. (Inspired Evidence)

Von Vett and Malone marvel how the pre-spider could have evolved such an incredible substance, but also have simultaneously evolved the mechanisms and instincts necessary to use it effectively without getting caught in its own web.

In order for the spider to derive any advantage out of his silk, he would also have required the ability to make a web out of it. And these abilities and organs had to exist simultaneously! To have the silk without the instinct and tools to make the web would not have given him any advantage. Instead, the silk would have been a useless encumbrance.

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: It’s not a Toss-Up

The body is wondrously designed. Not only does it have the machinery for life, it also has the equipment to maintain life, and this equipment is incredibly complex. The Clotting Cascade involves 10 distinct chemical processes, culminating in a scab. Bruce Malone wrote:
                                               

• If one of these chemicals is missing or is in the wrong order, then a person would bleed to death. If the chemicals activate 20 minutes after the cut or if the clot does not cover the entire area, the result is again death. If the clotting continues without stopping, then the body’s blood system would clot up and the person would die. (Inspired Evidence)

This is only one of the thousands of processes of our life sustaining equipment that are irreducibly complex. This idea has recognized that all of the parts (chemicals) have to be present and connected for the system to work. This argues powerfully against Darwinian gradualism – the only mechanism the evolutionists have been able to propose to get us from A (the first form of life) to Z (us). Instead, irreducible complexity insists that gradualism cannot account for the development of any useful system.

Could other conceivable structures have performed the same vital function as the Clotting Cascade, as evolutions suggest? If they could, it doesn’t seem that they could do so as well. I had been taking Prilosec for acid reflux. I was assured that there wouldn’t be any side effects. The doctor spoke of this drug as if it represented an advancement over our original body design. I thought, “If only the body manufactured it’s own Prilosec and could automatically inject it into my troubled stomach as needed!”

However, it seems that every drug comes with its own set of side-effects – life-limiting characteristics. I subsequently found that this was also true of my “no-side-effects” Prilosec. Just today, the news announced that it has been found that all of those powerful antacids tend to cause vitamin B-12 deficiencies and even the early onset of dementia! Darn, but no surprise!

Perhaps then, God didn’t goof when He designed our body without a built-in Prilosec pump! Have we ever been able to make any improvement upon the healthy human body? Not as far as I can tell! This speaks loudly in favor of intelligent design. If we intelligent beings haven’t been able to improve upon the original design, perhaps the original had been even more intelligently designed than we have acknowledged!

As I grow older, I have been eagerly awaiting for just one of aging’s changes to improve my body. However, I’ve been repeatedly disappointed. My eyes, ears, sleep and even bowels are all beginning to fail me, bringing me back to thoughts about my former self – my original bio-chemical endowment. From my present partially-hobbled condition, I am more amazed than ever with what God hath done!

Irreducible Complexity, Gradualism, and Faith

The concept of “irreducible complexity” observes that many – or all - biological structures cannot suffer the loss of any one part and still function optimally. Each part is necessary. Loss never means improvement. Hardening of the arteries never gives a functional advantage.

In contrast, the engine of evolution – Darwinian gradualism - must explain how each incremental step, each additional building-block, in the development of an organ or a structure, gives the host organism a survival advantage, even before the organ, as we know it, is functional.

The pericardium of the heart is one such building-block. There first has to be a heart before the pericardium can provide any advantage. However, without the pericardium, the heart will quickly burn out. It seems that all the parts have to be present before the organ to function properly. Bruce Malone explains:

• A sac called the pericardium is a tough, thin, fibrous membrane which surrounds and protects the heart. Imagine it this way, your heart is in a plastic sandwich bag with another sandwich bag surrounding it, and between the two bags is an oily lubricating fluid. Your heart is essentially encased in this tough sac with the lubricant fluid between the heart and the sac…When the heart beats, it can now slide around in the fluid without creating friction…A heart without this marvelous sac would soon produce enough heat to kill us. (Inspired Evidence)

Some biologists argue that all functional structures – even the microscopic ones - are irreducibly complex. How then do evolutionists explain the evolution of such structures? Darwinian gradualism seems unable to explain, in any detailed way, how those many necessary parts can each confer a survival advantage as they are added gradually one-at-a-time.  Therefore, Malone concludes:

• These kinds of details are ignored by the evolution believers. They just wave a magic wand and say, “Evolution did it.”

Ah, the wisdom of evolution!