Irreducible Complexity: The microscopically small hydrogen ion motor depicted in this diagram turns at 100,000 revolutions per minute. It can stop in a quarter revolution; and reverse direction. It requires 40 components. If even one is missing the motor will not function. Building this motor in a step-wise manner would only result in adverse selection against each individual component, each of which, by itself, would be useless. Therefore, this motor is irreducibly complex, and a product of intelligent design. The concept of irreducible complexity was first codified by Prof. Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box; Touchstone, 1996; New York New York).
Since the initial codification of the concept of irreducible complexity, many other examples have been recognized. We identify and discuss several. They include: binocular vision, the production of surfactant just prior birth, the transfer of colostrum just prior to milk production in mammals, the integration of the cerebral cortex and the basal ganglia of the brain in order to allow controlled intentional motion, and hundreds of other examples. We discuss those mentioned above under the heading entitled Irreducible Complexity.
The hypotheses known as Darwinian Macroevolution and Intelligent Design are attempts by humankind to answer the question regarding the origin of life and the diversity of life on Earth. The concept of intelligent design fits the empirically-derived facts better than does Macroevolution. And, contrary to the opinions of those who work with theory, those who work in the fields of applied science regard intelligent design as the default explanation for life's diversity. This is especially true in the fields of medicine and engineering. There is even a name for the phenomenon with regard to engineers: the "Salem hypothesis."
The Southern California Chapter of the >b>Discovery Institute's Discovery Society invite evolutionists to engage in a logical scientific debate based on findings of fact not philosophy. We ask evolutionists to explain the sudden appearance of thousands of various life forms in the Cambrian layer of geologic strata without evidence of precursor organisms. Until evolutionists can explain the "Cambrian Explosion" without speculation, and answer the 10 questions that follow, Intelligent Design must be considered the explanation that best fits the evidence.
Ten Questions For Evolutionists
- Nucleotides and proteins are entirely different molecules. How can evolution explain the concomitant production of one by the other i.e. the chicken-and-egg-relationship of DNA, RNA and protein in the "primordial soup." It is impossible to produce one without having produced the others first.
- 99.9% of mutations are deleterious. How can evolution work upstream, i.e. fortuitously producing an improved mutation and protecting it from further deleterious mutation, while producing yet more new fortuitous mutations?
- If there is such a thing as "natural selection", then why are 30 percent of the genes in a genome polymorphic?
- If Darwinism is right, then why do so many evolutionists say it's wrong; and why is Motoo Kimura's theory of neutral mutation with random drift the current favored hypothesis among evolutionists?
- If evolution is right, then how can there be so many differing explanations for the hypothesis, i.e. Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, symbiogenesis, and neutral mutation with random drift?
- Isn't it true that the basic axiom of science is one phenomenon, one explanation? Therefore, isn't it true that if the hypothesis of evolution has multiple explanations, it must be wrong; otherwise there would be only one explanation?
- How can evolutionary hypothesis explain the irreducible complexity of complex biological systems which require the simultaneous integration of multiple structural and enzymatic components, i.e. the concomitant production of alveolar lungs (structural genes), and, surfactant type phospholipids (enzymatic genes), and proteins necessary to neutralize the effect of lung surface tension? Premature infants die unless both are present. Wouldn't the first primordial mammals have died, also?
- How can evolutionists circumvent the demands of the Hardy-Weinberg law (the incidence of a gene in a genome remains constant generation after generation, no matter whether it is dominant or recessive, or rare). Trying to use "gene flow," bottle-neck or founder effect hypotheses is untenable because Muller's ratchet demands that isolation and founder effect destroy a genome if a population's genome becomes smaller and smaller?
- How can a contralateral-functioning cortex and the basal gangliar systems of a telencephalon be successfully superimposed on an ipsilateral-functioning cerebellum and rhombencephalon?
- How can lateral vision, with complete decusation of optic pathways, at the optic chiasm undergo transition to forward facing binocular vision, using a partially decusating optic chiasm, a step at a time, and still remain functional while undergoing the transition? Wouldn't the information directed to the optic cortex from each eye become contradictory, and produce a nonfunctioning organism? And, what about the need to produce a new eye socket, a new wiring system, and a new method of integrating the concomitant focusing of both eyes on the same object, and properly directing the information from each retina to the proper locations in the paired optic radiations? (See figures 2 A and 2 B by clicking the Irreducible Complexity button)
The purpose of this web site is to present reliable information in support of intelligent design, and irreducible complexity as the proximate causes of life and its diversity. Information provided here is based entirely on empirically derived fact.
Irreducible Complexity is an indisputable fact of biologic function. Irreducible Complexity is indicative of intelligent design. Therefore, the world in which we live is better understood in terms of design, as opposed to spontaneous origin and evolution.
Our efforts are dedicated to disseminating factual information, and answering the question: are we the result of chance or design? It is our objective to confirm and propagate scientific truth: that which is correct now; has always been correct; and will always be correct.
We encourage all who love science to condemn the actions of those who pervert the truth and use the prestige of their positions in urging students to disregard evidence of design in biologic systems, and instead see evolution. Teachers have an obligation to present facts and let intelligent minds decide their significance. To do otherwise is too insult all the science that has gone before and turn science upside down.