In their crusade to defeat Darwinism, anti-evolutionists often present a superabundance of contradictory and specious arguments. But this shotgun approach more often than not backfires, by revealing their flawed methodology. An example is the book The Evolution Cruncher[1] by Vance Ferrell. Marketed to home-schoolers, it is found across the internet from Kent Hovind's (Dr. Dino's) web site to anti-Harry Potter blogs. All twenty-four chapters of this book attack evolution from every conceivable angle, by using weighty subjects like cosmology, paleo-geology, biochemistry, paleo-magnetism, anthropology, archeology, physics, and morality. But the absurd contradictions are what stand out. Chapter 4, titled The Age of The Earth: Why the Earth is not millions [sic] of years old is followed by chapter 5, The Problem of Time: Why long ages cannot produce evolutionary change. Ferrell first argues that the Earth is not “millions” of years old and then that long ages cannot produce evolutionary change. Shifting the polarity of one’s position is sometimes acceptable for the sake of argument, but making scientific statements of fact does require consistency. If Ferrell stands behind his young-Earth beliefs, stated in chapter 4 of his book as well as in Chapters 14, The Effects of The Flood and in Chapters 21 Archeological Dating) then whether or not long spans of time can produce significant evolutionary change is irrelevant from his stand point. Arguing from both sides of the fence is desperation. But this style of scattergun argument is more in tune with the world of criminal defense law than with science.

Ferrell continues his disjointed approach in chapter 15, titled Similarities and Divergence: Why similar structures are not an evidence of evolution and chapter 16, titled Vestiges and Recapitulation: You have no useless or inherited structures from earlier life forms. From his position, if similar structures are not evidence for evolution it doesn’t really matter if we, as humans, possess any inherited structures or not. But Ferrell covers al his bases and more, as seen in chapter 18, The Laws of Nature: The laws of nature oppose the evolutionary theory, and chapter 23, Scientists Speak: Evolutionary scientists say the theory is unscientific and worthless. If it is true that evolutionary scientists say the theory of evolution is worthless and unscientific, and the laws of nature make it impossible, then why did Ferrell write 22 other chapters assailing evolution from every other possible angle?

The central argument of intelligent-design creationism is the overreaching conclusion of irreducible complexity, or simply that the complexity of life is reason enough to declare the existence of a creator. Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box, puts forth the example of a mouse trap, and argues thru irreducibly complex that if any part of the trap were to become lost or to fail then the trap would cease to function. Behe extends his argument to microscopic cellular structures like the flagellum, and declares anything that cannot be explained by natural selection as the work of a designer.

Although intelligent designers are confident that natural selection cannot account for all the complexity of life, their premise is easily turned upside down. The crux of intelligent design is that complexity begets complexity, that the Designer is complex. Although, if we admit to the Designer being complex, we have to ask how did the Designer’s complexity come to be. There are two options in answering this question. First, we could say that the Designer himself or herself did not require creating, he or she simply exists. If this is so and the Designer is in fact supernatural and did not need to be created, then we have to acknowledge that not everything in the universe requires creating. Admitting this, we are forced back to the beginning where we questioned whether or not complexity is able evolve by itself. If we acknowledge the existence of a Designer, who is complex and who is free from the laws of the universe, a universe where complexity can arise by itself, then we must concede that evolution of complexity by natural means is possible. The second path, which is less appealing, but more fitting to the intelligent design model, is that the Designer had a Designer and that the second Designer also had a Designer, and so on and so on, off into infinity. The options are Designers projected off into infinity or self-organizing complexity. Which is more reasonable?

If we put aside intelligent design’s main conclusion, of a supernatural Designer, and we look carefully at the structure of the ID argument, outlined in Michael Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity, we find a weak foundation:

“By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”[3]

The central word in Behe’s argument is function, which he leaves poorly defined. But how should we define the functionality of a complex system? Is functionality an either-or proposition like the zero or one of a computer’s machine code? Is it so simple that it can be defined as being in an on or off state? Isn’t functionality more accurately measured in degrees? Aren’t there qualities of functionality? A system may begin to function for a particular purpose but it doesn’t mean the system is perfect or of the most optimal design. Behe implies perfection of design when he speaks of functionality. But the natural world is not interested in perfection, because evolution is not progressive, only adaptive. Therefore, a system begins to function for its particular purpose, but may only have very low efficiency. There is room, of course, for improvement or better adaptability. So, the system may become more efficient. And the efficiency of a system may be measured. There is the point when it begins to function and is least efficient and the point when it is most efficient, with points of varying efficiency in between. Behe’s thesis is therefore based on perfection of design, and a form of typological or essentialist thinking that he has scaled down for use in his IC argument.

Again, in Behe’s definition of IC, we find ambiguity. This time as to what he means by parts.

“By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts...” [3]

Does “well-matched” mean that all the parts of the system contribute equally? The fact is that not all of the parts of a complex system are of equal importance; nor do they contribute equally to the work being done. For example, the human eye is not the paragon of design, as creationists like to portray. There are degrees of efficiency above and below that of the human eye. An eagle possesses much better vision than a human. And animals like the rhinoceros are reported to have very poor vision. So, choosing the human eye as an example of a complex system is somewhat forced and misleading. The design of the human eye is in fact reducible in its complexity, even if it is at the cost of efficiency. Color is not essential to sight, nor is an iris, or even eye muscles. Imagine the human eye now with humans walking around color blind, shading their eyes with their hands, and turning their heads to see objects that are almost right in front of them. Such eyes would still function, but just not as well. Take geckos [4] as an example, those small tropical lizards with the ability to cling to walls. Some species have lost the ability to blink, and must lick their own eyeballs in order to keep their eyes clean. The point here is that removing or modifying any of system’s parts does not automatically render the entire system useless even if all the parts seem essential. Removing or modifying parts makes the system more or less efficient long before the system actually ceases to function completely. So, for Behe to argue that all parts of a so called IC system are equally essential or that removing one part from the system automatically leads to the function “ceasing” is a deliberate oversimplification of the natural world.

Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity is intentionally rigged, and the opposite of what is found in the natural world in which the quality and efficiency of a system’s function is clearly flexible. How flexible? If the efficiency of a complex system’s function varies enough, the function can be varied to the degree that an entirely new function may be adopted. The conversion of complex biological structures from one function to another is quite evident in nature, but Behe seems to ignore such facts. Even with his example of the flagellum, we see variation of functionality. In many single celled organisms, the flagellum is the primary organ of locomotion, but in multicellular organisms like sessile sponges flagellated cells create water currents for collecting food particles. Paramecia use many small cilia for locomotion and for capturing food, while sperm cells use a single large flagellum for movement. Behe’s IC mouse trap example is no different. A mouse trap with enlarged parts could be powerful enough to trap rats. And a mouse trap with reduced parts might be suitable for trapping insects, but useless in trapping mice and rats. The conclusion is quantitative variation within biological systems can lead to qualitative variation. But creationists react to talk of such adaptation with questions like “What good is half a wing or part of any eye?” They completely disregard the fact that a biological system cannot only shift function, but can have multiple functions. Human bone, for example, provides protection as well attachment points for muscles. But it also is the main production site of red blood cells in the body. In the end, if it is possible for the function of a system to vary then such a system can NEVER be labeled as irreducibly complex. To do so is to project rigged typological thinking into biological structures, and to disregard real life evidence.

Anti-evolutionists are prone to dancing in and out of the logic arena at their own convenience. A perfect example is found in a cable-TV, ministry show, called The Way of the Master, hosted by Ray Comfort and former 80's, child star, Kirk Cameron (Growing Pains). Segments of the show are shot on the street with Kirk and Ray, asking average people questions about their morality. (They usually guide the participants into giving the affirmative answers).

Host: “Do you consider yourself to be a good person?”

Person On Street: “Yes”

Host: “Have you ever told a lie?”

Person: “Yes”

Host: “What does that make you?”

Person: “Human”

Host: “More specifically, what does that make you?”

Person: “A liar”

Host: “Have you ever stolen something?”

Person: “Yes”

Host: “What does that make you?”

Person: “A thief”

Host: “Have you ever looked at someone with lust?”

Person: “Yes”

Host: “The Bible says that looking at someone with lust is the same as committing adultery. So what does that make you?”

Person: “An adulterer”

Host: “By your own admission you are a lying, thieving, adulterer. So if you stand before God on judgment day, and He judges you by the Ten Commandments, do you think you’d be innocent or guilty?”

Because of the limited framework of the argument offered, the participants are forced into admitting that they are headed for Hell. But if they object or try to reason their way into Heaven, Ray or Kirk claim that intellectual arguments are no good with God and that salvation can only be found by accepting that Jesus died on the cross for their sins.

Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort’s episode on evolution, titled The Evolution Zone [5], was produced with a tone of derision and apparently without the aid of a research department. Kirk refers to fossil Neanderthal man as “the skeleton of an arthritic old man who had been found in France over 50 years ago”. (Bones of 400 individuals have been found from Britain to the Middle East, while the first partial set was uncovered in 1856 in the Neander Valley outside Dusseldorf, Germany) [6] Kirk also speaks of a Darwin contemporary named “William Huxley”. (Likely he meant T.H. Huxley, even though at least two Williams occupy the Huxley family tree. But as far as I know neither of them contributed to evolutionary biology). And Kirk and Ray both pose deceptive questions to the public like “was the first fish to walk on land male or female?” Ray also mockingly attempts to book an airline seat for his “relative”, an orangutan, and Kirk Cameron does an impersonation of Rod Serling (Twilight Zone), in The Evolution Zone, in a not too subtle attempt to call evolution science-fiction. But the show’s introduction stands out the most with Kirk and Ray asking the audience to image the show having spontaneously come into existence,

“...the entire program just happened. There was a Big Bang in our production studio, and here we are... Could you believe that? Of course you couldn’t. No body in his right mind could. And yet many evolutionists would have us believe that in the name of science... there was no creator, no space, no matter...”

Ray Comfort strongly emphasizes that, “true believers [in evolution] use what we call the language of speculation.” The irony in this statement says it all. But by the simple act of Kirk and Ray forcefully stating that there is no evidence supporting evolution, by saying “that the theory of evolution is unscientific... [And] that its based on blind faith” and by sniping at the fossil record as they do, they imply that there is a hypothetical level of evidence, improbable to them as it may be, that would possibly convince them that evolution is in fact valid.

But Kirk contradicts himself with “When you learn how to speak to a person’s conscience and circumnavigate the intellect, the subject of evolution seems to disappear.”

And Ray supports that with “... this is real good news for people like me. It means that I don’t have to become an expert on the fossil record...”

Kirk then says, “Now are we trying to be anti-intellectual or avoid talking about the subject of evolution? Of course not...”

Kirk and Ray in the end stultify their own position, because if the intellect is something to be “circumnavigated” in favor of the “conscience”, then any amount of evidence is completely immaterial, and stating otherwise is fraudulent.

All is fair in love and war - some people say. But in debating scientific issues hopefully this philosophy can be set aside in favor of some logical rules of analysis and engagement. However, as creationists demonstrate in their tactics, winning for the sake of their ideology is more important than the pursuit of facts. Manipulating the facts is their modus operandi. From Intelligent Design creationists like Michael Behe, to young earth, fire and brimstone, creationists like Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, we see an effort to make ostensibly reasonable arguments while simultaneously ignoring the rules of logic. Creationists’ real intension is to maintain religious belief and to discourage contradictory views, which is the opposite of scientific investigation. A major defect, or logical incongruity, exists in the creationist philosophy when they attack evolution so haphazardly; on the one hand creationists demand parsimonious explanations from evolutionists, but on the other they offer in return only supernatural resignations for the same natural phenomena under examination.

ENDNOTES:

1. Ferrell, Vance The Evolution Cruncher http://www.evolutioncruncher.us/

2. http://www.kent-hovind.com and http://www.drdino.com. The The Evolution Cruncher is available for sale on this site in bulk.

3. Behe, Michael Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution 1998

4. Zug, George Herpetology: An Introductory Biology of Amphibian and Reptiles 2001

5. http://www.wayofthemaster.com/ and http://www.livingwaters.com Program #21 Evolution

6. The Neanderthal Museum In Germany / Site of Original Fossil Discovery http://www.neanderthal.de/

Stanford University Press Article On Neanderthals

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/december1/med-neanderthal-1201.html

National Geographic Article with Range Map of Neanderthals

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0306_030306_neanderthal.html