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
.jpeg)