One of the most important
concepts that one must employ when questioning Darwinist theory in the light of
scientific discoveries is without a doubt the criterion that Darwin himself
employed. In The Origin of Species, Darwin put forward a number of concrete
criteria suggesting how his theory might be tested and, if found wanting,
disproved. Many passages in his book begin, "If my theory be true," and in these
Darwin describes the discoveries his theory requires. One of the most important
of these criteria concerns fossils and "transitional forms." In earlier
chapters, we examined how these prophecies of Darwin's did not come true, and
how, on the contrary, the fossil record completely contradicts
Darwinism.
In addition to these, Darwin
gave us another very important criterion by which to test his theory. This
criterion is so important, Darwin wrote, that it could cause his theory to be
absolutely broken down:
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 out no such case. 348
We must examine Darwin's
intention here very carefully. As we know, Darwinism explains the origin of life
with two unconscious natural mechanisms: natural selection and random changes
(in other words, mutations). According to Darwinist theory, these two mechanisms
led to the emergence of the complex structure of living cells, as well as the
anatomical systems of complex living things, such as eyes, ears, wings, lungs,
bat sonar and millions of other complex system designs.
However, how is it that
these systems, which possess incredibly complicated structures, can be
considered the products of two unconscious natural effects? At this point, the
concept Darwinism applies is that of "reducibility." It is claimed that these
systems can be reduced to very basic states, and that they may have then
developed by stages. Each stage gives a living thing a little more advantage,
and is therefore chosen by natural selection. Then, later, there will be another
small, chance development, and that too will be preferred because it affords an
advantage, and the process will go on in this way. Thanks to this, according to
the Darwinist claim, a species which originally possessed no eyes will come to
possess perfect ones, and another species which was formerly unable to fly, will
grow wings and be able to do so.
This story is explained in a
very convincing and reasonable manner in evolutionist sources. But when one goes
into it in a bit more detail, a great error appears. The first aspect of this
error is a subject we have already studied in earlier pages of this book:
Mutations are destructive, not constructive. In other words, chance mutations
that occur in living creatures do not provide them any "advantages," and,
furthermore, the idea that they could do this thousands of times, one after the
other, is a dream that contradicts all scientific
observations.
But there is yet another
very important aspect to the error. Darwinist theory requires all the stages
from one point to another to be individually "advantageous." In an evolutionary
process from A to Z (for instance, from a wingless creature to a winged one),
all the "intermediate" stages B, C, D, …V, W, X, and Y along the way have to
provide advantages for the living thing in question. Since it is not possible
for natural selection and mutation to consciously pick out their targets in
advance, the whole theory is based on the hypothesis that living systems can be
reduced to discrete traits that can be added on to the organism in small steps,
each of which carries some selective advantage. That is why Darwin said, "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."
Given the primitive level of
science in the nineteenth century, Darwin may have thought that living things
possess a reducible structure. But twentieth century discoveries have shown that
many systems and organs in living things cannot be reduced to simplicity. This
fact, known as "irreducible complexity," definitively destroys Darwinism, just
as Darwin himself feared. Darwinrefuted.com
