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, ÖV, 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
Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First
Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189. (emphasis