What is irreducible complexity and what does it prove? It makes sense to me that there are systems that are so complex that they either have the parts to form the complex systems from the start or they do not exists at all. Take for example a hummingbird. This is one of God's creations that could not have evolved. It either had the ability to fly frontwards and backwards, or it would have become part of the food chain, and never existed at all. So, with this in mind, let us take a look at this interesting subject.
Professor Michael Behe of Lehigh University coined the term in his seminal work Darwin’s Black Box, 1996. He popularized the concept by presenting the common mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity. A typical mousetrap is made up of five integral parts: a catch, a spring, a hammer, a holding bar and a foundation. According to Behe, if any of these parts are removed without a comparable replacement (or at least a significant restructuring of the remaining parts), the entire system will fail to function.
Irreducible complexity is a term used to describe a characteristic of certain complex systems whereby they need all of their individual component parts in place in order to function. In other words, it is impossible to reduce the complexity of (or to simplify) an irreducibly complex system by removing any of its component parts and still maintain its functionality.
Have secular academics tried to refute the obvious conclusion of this scientific process? They always jump to refute anything that tends to complement intelligent design, which points directly to God as the creator. God doesn't take kindly to men who deny God's handiwork. (Romans 1:18-32; Proverbs 14:12; Ezekiel 18:23; James 1:14).
If one wants to see irreducible complexity at work simply look in the mirror. Complex organs down to the cellular level could not have been formed by numerous, successive, and slight modifications called randomness. Just as the Anthropic Principle, irreducible complexity shows clear signs of intentional design. And no “publish or perish” academic can conclusively argue his way around this.
Let us take a closer look at protons. Protons are the positively charged subatomic particles which (along with neutrons) form the nucleus of an atom (around which negatively charged electrons orbit). Whether by providence or fortuitous luck (depending on your perspective), protons just happen to be 1,836 times larger than electrons.
If they were a little bigger or a little smaller, we would not exist (because atoms could not form the molecules we require). So how did protons end up being 1,836 times larger than electrons? Why not 100 times larger or 100,000 times? Why not smaller? Of all the possible variables, how did protons end up being just the right size? Was it luck or contrivance?
Or how is it that protons carry a positive electrical charge equal to that of the negatively charged electrons? If protons did not balance electrons and vice versa, we would not exist. They are not comparable in size, yet they are perfectly balanced. Did nature just stumble upon such a propitious relationship, or did God ordain it for our sakes?
The evidence demands a verdict. And that verdict to my mind is “the LORD God of the Heavenly Armies— the LORD is his name” (Hosea 12:5). I've only cited a few examples for your review, but rest assured there over a thousand factors which must be just right in order for life to exist on Earth
Thank you for reading the articles. Please subscribe at the + sign by my picture. My hope is that you both learn and enjoy the articles. I will always try to prepare the body of Christ for the coming rapture, warn against apostasy, and allow you to look it up yourself in the Word of God and come to your own conclusions.
Thank you for reading the articles and please subscribe at the + sign by my picture to receive updates on new articles. God's blessings to you and your family.
Comments