Intelligent Design - CreationCenters.com

If complex systems cannot be developed one step at a time with the requirement that each step is the result of a random chance mistake, each step creates a structure that is useful, and each step makes something better to give a survival advantage, then evolution logically cannot be possible.

Intelligent design approaches the question of the origin of life by looking at the complexities that we now observe in life. This field originally began with the realization of Michael Behe, a molecular biologist, that living systems have what he termed irreducible complexity. He was outraged to discover that after obtaining his PhD in biology and becoming a University professor that there were very convincing arguments against evolution that he had never even heard of. At this point in the book you may be sharing this experience. His expertise in the molecular mechanisms within a cell led him to discover that these systems could not be the result of random chance mistakes and that there must have been “intelligence” involved to create life.

The proponents of intelligent design are very careful with the language they use. They emphasize that they are being precise about what can and cannot be determined from the science. The science of intelligent design uses intellectual evaluations of complexities as well as information technologies to conclude that life cannot have come from undirected natural processes such as evolution, and that there must have been an intelligent designer because life has clear evidence of design. Intelligent design does not use the word ‘God’ because the science itself does not tell us who the designer is, only that there is an intelligent designer.

The logic of intelligent design is based on a comment of Charles Darwin when he presented the theory of evolution. Darwin stated,

“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.”

The intellectual honesty is to be applauded. He gave us a method to determine if his theory was correct. The simplicity of the evaluation is striking. Look at the systems we see in life and consider if they could be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. We have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of examples of this. It would seem fair to rewrite the statement as, “for evolution to be true we must explain how a complex life system could be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.”

These systems that we see in life are organized into organs which each have one purpose. Some examples of organs are the heart, lung, kidneys, and liver. You need to know that evolutionists have not presented a sequence of events that would form any organ. Not one. When creationists present an organ that they say cannot be formed in this way, the response by evolutionists is simply that they do not yet know all of the steps but someday they will.

The mechanism and process of evolution is very demanding. There can only be one change at a time. That is why there must be numerous and successive changes. In addition, each change must make something superior or there would be no ‘survival advantage.’ There can only be one change at a time, each change must be the result of a DNA mutation, each change makes only a slight modification, and each change must produce something that is a superior quality. All of these conditions must be met for evolution to produce a superior life form. These facts about the process and requirements for evolution are not controversial. Evolutionists and creationists both agree on the absolute requirement that all of these steps have to happen in evolution. Creationists say that there is no way a complex organ or life can be made in this way.

The four evolutionary requirements are not controversial and evolutionists and creationists agree:

There is only one step at a time.
Each step is the result of a random chance mistake.
Each step must make something useful.
Each step must make something better.

A common example to explain this is the bacterial flagellum. This is the ‘tail’ of bacteria that spins and makes it move. This is an example that Michael Behe used because it is a relatively simple ‘molecular machine’ where all of the 40 parts are known. It looks and functions like an outboard motor on a boat. Just like a motor on a car or boat, this ‘motor’ in bacteria has many parts. What creationists say does not make sense is that you cannot ‘build’ a motor one part at a time. All the parts have to be together to make the motor work. Just one part not working makes the whole motor not work. This is what happens every time you take your car in for service. The problem that evolutionists must explain is much worse for them then having just one part not working.

Evolutionists must have to build a motor (or any system) one part at a time out of nothing. The first part must do something useful, or there is no survival advantage and the process would not continue. Then you have to add a second part and this must make something that is both useful and better than what one part did. Then there must be a third part added and this must also make something that is both useful and better than what the two parts did. This process of adding only one part at a time continues indefinitely with the requirement that each additional part has to make something that is both useful and something that is better than the previous condition.

Here is just one of the major problems. Each ‘part’ of a motor has no purpose by itself. All of the ‘parts’ are only useful if all of the parts are together at the same time and functioning together. If each individual part has no use by itself, it could never have evolved. This has been called irreducible complexity. The system cannot be reduced to individual parts that are useful. The constraints of evolution do not allow for the possibility of simultaneous evolution of the parts to form a system. Remember what Darwin told us:

“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.”

There must be numerous, successive and slight modifications only. So if individual parts have no use and we know systems need all of the parts present at the same time to perform a function, it is impossible for the process of evolution to produce any system.

Another problem with this that evolutionists must explain is how these ‘parts’ are made. All life forms contain systems. All of these are far more complex than mechanical things humans can make like motors. Life systems are exceedingly more complex and many of the ‘parts’ are chemical in nature. Since each part of every system is coded in DNA, each of these changes must be the result of an infrequent mutation of DNA.

There is not one example of any biologic system that is the result of numerous, successive, slight modifications. Evolutionists of course have been challenged by creationists to present a sequence of what mutation on what chromosome made what part that was useful by itself, then what mutation on what chromosome made a second part of a system that made the system useful and better, and what mutation on what chromosome made a third part of a system that made the system useful and better, and so on. This order of mutations has not been presented for any system.

Further, there is not even an example of any biologic system that can be made in this way, even without explaining how you could get the parts from DNA mutations. Systems work because the parts work in a coordinated way together. The usefulness of any one part is only as it is useful to the whole system. Systems don’t work at all until all the parts are together, so it does not make any sense how you can build any system one part at a time. The problem is the evolutionary requirement that only one part at a time can be added, and as the system is built each step must make something that is both useful and better. Further, these life systems that we are talking about ‘building’ are the absolute most complex systems known or imaginable to man. Remember, it is not just having the parts; it is also how do you get the parts when they can only be produced from mutations of DNA.

Another layer of complexity in this discussion of intelligent design is that not only are the individual parts complex, but that these parts must be assembled in a particular order. It is not enough to just end up with all the right parts. They will not work unless they are assembled in a precise order or sequence. It is unimaginable and still unexplained how you can get the individual parts for a biologic system. However, even more difficult is that even if you have all the parts that still is not enough. There must be proper sequencing of assembly for the parts to work, and to have a purpose, and to perform a useful function.

Where would the instructions be to put the parts together to build a molecular machine? The instructions for the assembly must be coded in DNA. Evolutionists explain that the parts of these systems are the results of DNA mutations. But it does not make any sense since if this is a new part there would be no instructions in the DNA for how to assemble a part that did not previously exist. This would require two simultaneous mutations. There must be one mutation to produce a new part with a better and new function and another mutation which makes instructions in the DNA for how to assemble this previously nonexistent part. However, having two mutations at the same time violates the mechanism of evolution, where there can only be one change at a time. It doesn’t make any sense that a mutation to make a new part happens at the same time another mutation gives the assembly instructions for this part that did not exist. It cannot happen anyway because there can only be one mutation at a time, and every mutation is very infrequent. So for this to work there has to be two mutations, one for the part and one for the assembly instructions, but we know only one mutation can happen at a time. These parts don’t just magically become part of a complex and coordinated molecular machine. They have to be assembled. So this leads to yet another if/then statement:

If biologic systems cannot be built by mutations of DNA which create new ‘parts’ of molecular machines at the same time that other mutations create assembly instructions for these previously nonexistent parts, then evolution logically cannot be possible.

This aspect of assembly instructions in the DNA overlaps with the discussion of DNA mutations as a mechanism to produce advantageous changes. The first problem evolutionists must explain is how do mutations of DNA produce a new and advantageous part. Now they must also explain how assembly instructions can be the result of DNA mutations. It is even more illogical to believe that there are mutations of DNA that would produce precise instructions of the order of assembly of chemical parts of biologic systems when the parts themselves are the result of DNA mutations and did not previously exist. There would either be assembly instructions for nonexistent parts or parts with no assembly instructions. However, parts with no assembly instructions would make them worthless and therefore could not exist because of the requirement of usefulness of each of the parts for them to exist in the theory of evolution.

This topic of assembly instructions can be understood within the larger context of gene regulation. It is not enough to have DNA to code for ‘a part’, the part once made undergoes quite extensive modifications before they are functional and this is being discussed here as assembly instructions. The modification of these parts are required as part of the ‘assembly’. This is because the parts are not functional until this process is completed. So what do we know about gene regulation?

One of the Oxford Journals is called Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica which published the article “Genome-wide expression of non-coding RNA and global chromatin modification” The authors are amazed at “The complexity of the genes and the gene products in eukaryote (which) is highly beyond our imagination. This is reflected not only in gigantic genome but also in its complicated transcription and regulation network”. They studied RNA as the “key regulator” for “protein following the instruction of genetic” information. They conclude “It is still a long way for us to understand the intrinsic mechanism thoroughly in mammals” and go on to say “the underlying mechanism as a whole is elusive”. They encourage future research efforts to focus on a “key player in remodeling epigenetic inheritance (that) needs to be further investigated to understand gene expression”. These scientists reporting in the Oxford Journal cannot explain the modifications required before these complexes of biologic systems can be assembled.

Systems within Systems

The final aspect of intelligent design is that of systems within systems. The previous discussion and example of the bacterial flagellum involves an extremely simple system with as few parts as possible. It is used to present the truth that systems cannot be built one part at a time. Of course it must be remembered that each of these parts are actually chemical parts and quite complex in themselves. However, living systems are far more complex than this. The cell is the basic unit of life. Cells are organized into tissues and tissues are organized into organs. Organs are organized into organ systems and these are organized into organisms.

We have many of these organ systems such as the nervous system, the immune system, the digestive system and the cardiovascular system. All of these systems must be together at the same time to function and to have life. Each system is interdependent on the other systems. The neurologic system cannot function unless the digestive system works to isolate nutrients and then these nutrients must be delivered to the neurologic system through the cardiovascular system. If any one of these systems does not work, or had not yet ‘evolved’ the organism could not be alive. It is the same logic as how the parts of any one individual system must be together for the system to work. Here each of many systems of cells, tissues, organs and organ systems has to be together for there to be life.

All organisms have interrelated organ systems and each of these organ systems has interrelated organs and each organ has interrelated tissues and each tissue has interrelated cells. There are systems within systems within systems within systems. There are layers and layers of complexity in life. Each layer is complex by itself and each one dependent on others to have purpose and to be alive.

If cells within tissues within organs within organ systems within life cannot be developed one step at a time with each step the result of a random chance mistake and where each step creates a structure that is both useful and better to give a survival advantage, then evolution logically cannot be possible.

These are the many aspects of intelligent design. Biologic systems have irreducibly complex parts, there must be assembly instructions for previously nonexistent parts, the individual parts and their assembly instructions must be the result of DNA mutations, and there are an endless number of systems within systems within systems.

Each and every one of these aspects of intelligent design must be explained by evolutionists for evolution to be true. Currently there is no evolutionary explanation for any of these aspects of intelligent design. Intellectually and logically, the inability to explain even one of these issues is enough to make evolution not possible. For instance, even if you believe that irreducibly complex parts exist from undirected processes and even if you believe that systems within systems can develop one part at a time even though each part has no usefulness until all the parts are present, evolution is still impossible, even if the only part of this that is true is that there is no way to have assembly instructions in the DNA for nonexistent parts. On top of all of that, all of these together are only one of the 50 controversies that all need to be true for evolution to be true.

INTELLIGENTLY BUILT HOUSE

Let’s consider the building of a house and use the intelligent design logic as a way to understand this problem. The human body is immensely and immeasurably more complicated than a house because chemical ‘parts’ are far more difficult to produce and use than physical parts. However the same logic of intelligent design applies to both and physical parts are easier to understand and explain.

A house has many systems and is analogous to the systems of the human body. The structural system of the house with all the framing is like the skeletal system. The electrical system is like the neurologic system. The water pipes coming into the home are like the digestive system, and the septic system is like the kidneys and intestines excreting wastes. Insulation is like fat. The security system monitors for intruders like the immune system and the central vacuum cleans up like other parts of the immune system. If you can’t build a house one step at a time, with the evolutionary requirement that each step makes something that is both useful and better, then there is no way life could have formed this way either.

Can a house be built one step at a time? The construction of this home will be very different than what builders are used to. The process cannot proceed knowing that at the end there will be a house. Each step from the beginning must meet the four evolutionary requirements.

There is only one step at a time.
Each step is the result of a random chance mistake.
Each step must make something useful.
Each step must make something better.

To ‘build’ a human each of the parts themselves must be made but for this exercise we will make it simple and not even worry about how this would happen. Let’s just assume that all the parts for a house are somehow at the construction site, they only need to be assembled. In man this information of how to make the parts as well as the assembly instructions is in the DNA, which is like the blueprints of a construction project. Just like a house cannot be built without a plan, man cannot be made without the information in the DNA. This aspect of DNA is so critical to creation science that it is discussed separately in the next controversy, but here we see how it also overlaps with intelligent design.

For this mental exercise we will assume all of the parts to build a house are already present and disregard the even more difficult problem of how to get parts from nothing in the first place. If you cannot imagine how a house can be built one step at a time without violating any of the four evolutionary requirements, then you cannot logically believe that evolution is possible to build life one step at a time.

The construction of a house typically would begin with the plan. Here there is no plan, just random chance mistakes. Set before you are tens of thousands of pieces of wood, nails, wires, pipes, concrete mix, sheetrock, paint, flooring, shingles, light switches, outlets, windows, toilets, glue, caulking, insulation, and all the rest. You have everything needed, even all the tools and power. Now imagine all these parts strewn across the field with no part on top of another. This would fill many acres of land. Now the construction process begins. You can randomly take any two pieces and put them together. You cannot look and see what two pieces might make something better, you have to be blindfolded and randomly pick two pieces. If it makes something useful you can continue, if not you must start again.

In this process you might have any imaginable two pieces. A piece of wire and a piece of wood, useless, discard and try again. An outlet cover and a nail, useless and start again. If you could randomly get two pieces that are useful you could continue to add a third piece. At this step there are additional requirements of evolution. It must make something both useful and better than the previous step. Even if the addition of a third piece makes something useful, it would still not be enough because it must also make something better. This requirement is so that there will be a ‘survival advantage’ to the new collection of parts. This process must continue for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of steps. This process must continue until the house is complete. Each step adding one random part from the field and must make something useful and better. Do you think this could ever end up in a home? Never! The problem is the usefulness requirement and the fact that systems work within other systems.

The systems in a home are like the organ systems in a human. Humans have a skeletal system for support, a neurologic system for communication, an immune system for security, a kidney for filtering, a heart for pumping, and a brain for thinking. A house has these same types of systems. There is framing for support, an electrical system for signaling, a security system for monitoring, a plumbing system for water and a septic system for waste. Each of these systems is made up of many parts. You cannot build any one of these systems with the four evolutionary requirements, but even if you did none of these systems has any use by itself. Each of these systems needs all the other systems complete to have any usefulness, and without usefulness it would not evolve and would not exist.

So the first level of impossibility in this example is how you would get any part through a DNA mutation. The second level of impossibility is that even if an enormous number of these parts somehow are made, they still could never end up making any system since they would have to be assembled one at a time with each step making something both useful and better. The third level of impossibility is that even if any one system is made, there is still no use for it without all the other systems also working. Every part of any one system has to be completed for the system to work, and every system has to be completed for there to be life. There is no way for any system to be formed in this manner, and even if it did happen there would be no use for it by itself anyway! Everything must be together at the same time to work but this can never happen with the four evolutionary requirements.

Think about this problem in building a house. The framing of a house begins with pieces of wood and nails. You would have to assemble two pieces of wood to have something useful. It cannot be for the ultimate purpose of structural support. It would have to support something immediately. Then a third piece of wood would be added to make a larger part and this part must be both useful as well and be better than the first two pieces. The problem in terms of systems is there is no purpose of the framing by itself. Even if the framing is completed it is useless by itself and therefore could never have ‘evolved’.

The usefulness of a home is the ability of a family to live in it. The framing has no purpose unless there is also the electrical system, water pipes, sheetrock, flooring, roofing and all the other systems are complete. The same is true for the electrical system. It is complex by itself being made of individual part of wires, connections, relays, light fixtures, outlets, bulbs, and more. However, the electrical system is only useful when complete in the home, and is also useless by itself. The electrical system only becomes useful in the home when the entire home is done. You cannot turn a light on without flipping the switch, the switch needs sheetrock on the wall, the sheetrock cannot be placed until the insulation is in the wall, and you can’t put the insulation in until the framing is done which can’t be started until the foundation is complete. You can’t flush the toilet until the commode is there, which needs the flooring complete, which is placed on top of the framing, which is on the foundation and all of this needs water pipes coming in the home and a septic system draining fluids out. There is no point to the septic system unless all these other systems complete. There is no purpose of any system without all the other systems and each system is made of hundreds or thousands of parts and every one of these parts in every one of these systems has no purpose by itself until everything is completed and organized together. A house cannot be built this way.

This logic is true of every system. Each system is complex by itself, but is related to other equally complex systems. There is layered complexity that prevents individual usefulness when assembled sequentially. This problem only gets more and more complicated when thinking about biologic systems rather than physical systems made of these types of parts.

The nervous system has no purpose by itself and is very complicated by itself. The immune system has no purpose by itself and is very complicated by itself. The cardiovascular system has no purpose by itself and is very complicated by itself. The respiratory system has no purpose by itself and is very complicated by itself. Each system in a human has no purpose by itself and is very complicated by itself. For life to exist these systems have to work in a coordinated way and it is not reasonable to believe these complex and interrelated systems developed with the severe restrictions of evolution

The four evolutionary requirements are not controversial and evolutionists and creationists agree:

There is only one step at a time.
Each step is the result of a random chance mistake.
Each step must make something useful.
Each step must make something better.

It is for you to decide if you believe that complex biologic systems of life could possibly have ‘evolved’ in this way. Evolutionists still agree with the statement of Darwin:

“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.”

Three levels of impossibility have been presented. All of these are persuasive. One of these involves the modifications of ‘parts’ for them to be functional. These are necessary conditions.

It is a published fact in peer reviewed scientific journals that the modifications required before these complexes of biologic systems can be assembled is unexplained.

The Rhodes Scholarships are postgraduate awards supporting outstanding all-round students at the University of Oxford. Illusionists are experts who are able to entertain by making us believe we have seen the impossible. You do not need to be a Rhodes Scholar or an illusionist to believe: