In 1996 a blockbuster book was published by Touchstone Books entitled, Darwin's Black Box. Author and biochemist, Michael Behe, spoke engagingly regarding the "irreducible complexity" of the cell and the numerous systems within it. Furthermore, Behe saw this as evidence for intelligent design which gave great support for the now-popular ID movement.
As one would imagine, all of this has not set well with the Darwinian community that insists everything is strictly the result of chance, time, and natural processes (such as genetic mistakes). Indeed, when confronted with structures having painfully obvious design features, atheist Francis Crick states, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."1
Crick unknowingly confirmed what the apostle Paul clearly stated in Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. . . ."
This column recently discussed the origin of complex biological catalysts called enzymes (Origins Issues, August, 2003 Acts & Facts). Since that time the 2003 issue of the Annual Review of Biochemistry has been released — always a source of good scientific arguments for creation. In this 850 page volume, only a few articles even addressed evolution, and these only indirectly. In one article entitled "Challenges in enzyme mechanism and energetics"2 three Stanford evolutionists concluded,
[The study of enzymes] now lies poised at the interstices of chemistry, physics, and biology. From this new perspective and with tools of unprecedented power available, we have the capacity to ask still more probing questions and to apply novel and more powerful approaches. But even with this enormous power at our hands, we cannot expect breakthroughs to come easily. The systems are complex and irreducible to independent component parts . . . (my emphasis).
Incredibly, the pages of this article were listed under "evolution" in the index! But such irreducible complexity clearly points to an all-wise Creator by whom "all things consist" (Colossians 1:17). Could evolutionist Neil Sharpe be urging people to study the Bible when he says, "Any book that purports to answer fundamental questions such as `what is the meaning of life?' and `why are we here?' deserves close attention."3?
ICR would like to welcome the three Stanford evolutionists into the fold of the growing number of scientists who see life as complex and irreducible. They are obviously not joining our creationist fraternity, but their "creationist" conclusion as secular scientists must nonetheless be noted.
1. Crick, F. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Penguin Books, London, 1990, p. 138.
2. Kraut, D. A., Carroll, K. S. and Herschlag, D., Annual Review of Biochemistry, 72:517_571, 2003.
3. Sharpe, N., The Quarterly Review of Biology, September 2002, p. 320.