Charles Darwin said that if it could be shown that evolution did not occur by small, incremental, and cumulative changes, then his theory would come completely unraveled. Just over one hundred and sixty years later, biochemist Michael Behe did just that. Behe argued, quite successfully, that there are complex microbiological systems, unknown in Darwin’s time, that demonstrate such complexity that they could not have come into existence by small, incremental, and cumulative genetic changes. In fact, many biological systems demonstrate what Behe termed irreducible complexity, including the blood clotting cascade, the bacterial flagellum, the human eye, and many others. Interestingly, evolution claims that the human eye began as a small, nondescript cluster of cells on the surface of a very simple aquatic creature millions of years ago. Through the process of serial genetic mutation, this cluster of cells, by random chance, developed the capacity to distinguish sunlight from darkness. Over millions more years, by random genetic mutation producing tiny, incremental changes, these light-sensitive cells rolled into a sphere (the first eye-ball), the sphere becoming filled with fluid, the covering then developed first a cornea, then a lens, then rods and cones forming a functioning retina at the back of the eye for the lens to reflect the image upon it. Then, by random mutation, an optic nerve developed, attaching itself to the brain and transmitting electrical impulses that the brain used to create an exact replica of the image and to interpret the image the eye had initially focused on. Oh yeah, and in the process, a dozen or more specialized sight-specific biochemicals had also developed with just the proper structure, with just the correct chirality, in just the right place at just the right time. And all of this by millions of random rolls of the dice over millions of years. Behe, however, noted that by definition, evolution involves the accrual of advantageous mutations and argued that complex biological systems could not be built one piece at a time because an unfinished new structure provides no advantage to the survival of the species. Intermediatecomplexstructures formed through evolution are not so much unlike the evolution of a bicycle into a motorcycle. Realizing this example is an oversimplification, take your average bicycle. One day, by a random genetic mutation, a bicycle comes along with a motorcycle engine block mounted on the frame. This may be the first step in evolving a bicycle to a motorcycle, but this presents a considerable problem. The engine block does not provide any survival benefit to the species. In fact, it is detrimental to the bicycle’s survival because it adds significant, unnecessary weight. Now, according to survival of the fittest evolutionary processes, this particular type of modified bicycle would not be selected for, and the trait of the added engine block would not be passed on to subsequent generations. But there is still more. Somehow, through small, random genetic mutations, the bicycle still needs to develop pistons, bearings, spark plugs, an oiling system, an ignition system, a fuel system, etc., etc. Until the last part is in place and functioning, brought about by random evolutionary processes, the motorcycle engine will not run and will not be an advantage to the bicycle. That is an irreducibly complex system that cannot be built step by step. Biology is full of such examples. Even so, Behe points out in his 2019 book Darwin Devolves that the odds of macroevolution are much, much smaller yet. It turns out that the mechanism of evolution is actually a destructive phenomenon. If, for example, a group of cells with a specific function is modified by a genetic mutation, a large portion of the changes are neutral, neither helping nor hurting the species’ survival. On the other hand, however, the overwhelming majority of genetic mutations can be considered detrimental to the species. However, all genetic mutations are destructive in the sense that they destroy the entity’s ability to function as it was initially designed. In other words, if Darwinian evolution is true, evolutionary processes are always destructive. Behe writes, “Since the mechanism has no foresight, and since in many circumstances the random damaging of genes can be helpful to an organism, the selection ‘adds up’ those destructive changes only in the sense that a broken piece of machinery might add up to a growing pile of junk.” By this destructive mechanism, Behe says, Darwin Devolves. Join us next time as we continue to look at the unlikelihood of theoretical Darwinian evolutionary processes explaining the existence of life. Until then, look deep into the complexity of your own eyes and ask yourself: is God dead?
Gloria in excelsis Deo! Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.