|
The Defence System Cannot Have Been According to statements of scientists, the defence system possesses an "irreducible complexity". This term refers to an intact 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. As an example, let us think of the devices we would need if we were to send a fax:
- A facsimile device
- A telephone line
- A cable
- Paper.
If any one of these items is absent you cannot send a fax. Nothing from the above list must be missing. Besides, they must conform to exact specifications. For example, the length of the cable must be sufficient for the plug to reach the socket, otherwise the available items will be of no use. Similarly, although all elements of the defence system fulfill their functions perfectly, if there are a few components which malfunction, this would cause the body to lose the war.
For example, if the tiny granules located within the T cells do not function properly, they cannot store toxins, which in turn cannot be transferred to the enemy, again resulting in the war being lost. Therefore, in a system where the enemy cannot finally be killed, important functions such as the formation of warrior cells, their training, the transmission of the necessary signals to appropriate locations by the cells at the right time, and the thousands of combinations needed by our genes to produce antibodies, or the storing of limitless information in the memory cells, would all be worthless. The system would simply not work. Similarly, the existence of the many and varied functions of the human body, which has an irreducible complexity, is equally useless in the absence of a defence system. If the defence system did not exist or failed to operate properly, no human being would be able to survive.
How then do evolutionists explain the formation of such a vital and complex system? Actually, they have no answers which can shed light on the subject. Their only assertion is based on the view that the defence system has developed through gradual evolutionary processes. They hold that the mechanisms that provide this gradual development are "natural selection" and "mutations".
But it is impossible for slight, successive coincidental modifications to produce such a complex system as the theory of evolution suggests. As emphasized before, the immune system would simply not function unless it existed with all its elements intact. To reiterate, a malfunctioning defence system would cause the human being to die within a short time.
The second point of the argument is the process of "Natural Selection". As we will explain in more detail in the chapter, "The Evolution Deceit", the process of "Natural Selection" refers to the transfer of advantageous qualities to subsequent generations.
There is a consensus among scientists that the concept of such a mechanism is far from being satisfactory in explaining complex systems. The renowned American specialist in biochemistry, Michael J. Behe, made the following statements with relation to natural selection in his book, "Darwin's Black Box": An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, at one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to react on. 12The founder of the theory of evolution, Charles Darwin, as well as many contemporary scientists, have confessed that the supposed mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Charles Darwin states: These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:... Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?13One of the leading evolutionists of our day, professor of geology and paleoanthropology Dr Stephan Jay Gould states that natural selection can possess no evolutionary power: But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2 percent of a wing or gain much protection from an iota's similarity with a potentially concealing piece of vegetation. How, in other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated form? Mivart identified this problem as primary and it remains so today.14Can the existence of such a complex system be explained, as suggested by Neo-Darwinists, in terms of "mutations"? Is it really possible for such an excellent system to form as a result of successive mutations?
As we know, mutations are decompositions and damage taking place in the genetic codes of living beings as a result of various external factors. All mutations damage the genetic information programmed in the DNA of a living being, without adding any new genetic information to it. Therefore, mutations do not possess any developmental or evolutionary faculty. Today, many evolutionists accept this reality, though reluctantly.
One of these evolutionists, John Endler, a geneticist from the University of California, comments: Although much is known about mutation, it is still largely a "black box" relative to evolution. Novel biochemical functions seem to be rare in evolution, and the basis for their origin is virtually unknown.15The renowned French biologist Pierre P. Grassé also noted that the number of mutations would not change the result: No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.16It is clearly evident that the extraordinary properties and the mind-boggling abilities of these minute cells cannot be explained as mere coincidences or mutations; these are only evolutionists' fallacies, and are totally contradictory to science and logic. The highest human intelligence pales into insignificance when compared to the intelligence displayed by the cells.
There are thousands of similar extraordinary shows of intelligence in living creatures, which cannot be explained by the theory of evolution. In the face of these, many scientists, already plunged in doubt, are increasingly and day by day losing their confidence in the theory of evolution. They cannot help expressing their dissatisfaction at every opportunity.
Most researchers are well aware that evolutionist statements are nothing more than consolation and window-dressing. Klaus Dose, a well-known researcher in the field of molecular biology states: More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. 17Even Darwin, the founder of the theory of evolution, experienced the same lack of confidence some 150 years ago:
When I think of the many cases of men who have studied one subject for years, and have persuaded themselves of the truth of the foolishest doctrines, I feel sometimes a little frightened, whether I may not be one of these monomaniacs.18
It is quite evident that all these systems, just like everything else in the universe, are under the control of the Almighty God, the all-powerful and all-knowing. The inability of mankind to solve these mysteries is a sure sign that these issues are beyond man's grasp and are the product of greatly superior wisdom, that is, of God.
The answer to the questions which mankind has for centuries debated and deliberated upon, without being able to arrive at a logical conclusion, is extremely simple. The answer lies neither in coincidence, nor in natural selection nor in mutation. Not one of these is capable of forming life or maintaining its continuity.
God, the Lord of All the Worlds, has submitted our bodily cells as well as all that is in the universe to His Will.
12- Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, New York: Free Press, 1996, p. 39 
13- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 204
14- Stephen Jay Gould, "Not Necessarily a Wing", Natural History, October 1985, p. 13
15- J. A. Endler ve T. McLellan (1988), "The Process of Evolution: Toward A Newer Synthesis", Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19, 397
16- Pierre P. Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York, 1977, p. 88s
17- Klaus Dose (1988), "The Origin Of Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 13, 348
18- Francis Darwin, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Charles Darwin to W.B. Carpenter |
|
|
