Rev. K. D. Macleod
WRITING in 1887, C H Spurgeon believed that the theory of evolution was “a monstrous error in philosophy” which would be “a theme for ridicule before another 20 years” had passed. He was wildly over-optimistic. For another 90 years this theory, with all its implications for the integrity of the Christian religion, has held sway in the scientific world and indeed throughout society.
Yet in recent years a number of books pinpointing the defects of evolution have come from the press, written by men whose motivation has nothing to do with religion. The authors have recognised that these defects are so serious as to make it plain to any unprejudiced observer that the theory so long associated with the name of Charles Darwin is fatally flawed. The latest of these books is Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, published last year. Basic to Behe’s argument is a quotation: “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.” It comes from Darwin’s volume of 1859, The Origin of Species, which was so successful in persuading the world to accept that all living creatures have evolved from primitive forms of life. Behe summarises his argument thus: “To Darwin, the cell was a ‘black box’ – its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin’s test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin’s theory has ‘absolutely broken down’.”
A researcher in Biochemistry at an American university, Behe has looked at the accumulating knowledge about the inner workings of the cell, the basic building block of all living structures, and has come up with the concept of irreducible complexity. “When I say that something is irreducibly complex,” Behe explains, as reported in Christianity Today, “I simply mean that it is a 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.” A less complex system would not meet the requirements of the situation; it just would not work. The simple example of an irreducibly complex structure is a mousetrap. Behe will point to the five components of a mousetrap and explain, “You need all the parts to catch a mouse. You can’t catch a few mice with a platform, then add the spring and catch a few more, and then add the hammer and improve its function. All the parts must be there to have any function at all. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.”
He then takes his audience back to think of the cell and declares, “The cell is no longer a mysterious black box as it was for Darwin. We now know precisely how it works at the molecular level. And the cell is chock full of systems . . . that are irreducibly complex.” In the light of this observation he concludes that here is evidence which suggests that these systems were directly designed by an intelligent agent. In other words, every cell has a multitude of systems which could not function unless they were complete; they could not possibly have evolved stage by useful stage into their present condition. They must have had a creator. Behe accepts that the intelligent designer is indeed God, but he does not describe himself as a creationist, in the sense of being a believer in a recent six-day creation as understood from a straight-forward reading of Genesis.
Behe recalls a conversation on evolution with a fellow-researcher nearly 20 years ago. The question arose: “If the first life did arise by random naturalistic processes from a chemical soup, as all the textbooks are saying, what exactly are the minimum requirements that are required for life?” He and his colleague made a substantial list of these minimum requirements. Then they looked at each other and simultaneously realised that there were “too many systems; it couldn’t have happened by chance”. Behe’s thinking was further stimulated by Michael Denton’s 1985 critique: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Denton, also not a creationist, had concluded, “The Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the Twentieth Century.” Behe became convinced that the power of natural selection (the assumed mechanism of evolution) was mostly bluff – a largely unwarranted inference not well supported by the available evidence.
The significance of Behe’s book is not that a highly qualified scientist has vindicated the Biblical account of creation, for he has not gone as far as that. What he has done is examine the power of evolution to explain the existence of the basic building block of all living structures. And he has found evolution wanting – completely wanting. When he started to write his book he began to search for references in textbooks and technical journals which would give, from the Darwinian point of view, an explanation of the evolution of complex systems. He expected not to find many such references. In fact, he found absolutely none. Behe comments, “Many of these systems have been fully understood for 40 years or more, and not one explanation has been published offering a plausible scenario by which they could have evolved. Any science which claims to have explained something, when in fact they have published no explanation at all, should be brought to account.” This is what Behe has attempted to do. And a lot of attention is being paid to him. The prestigious New York Times Book Review noted: “He argues that the origin of intracellular processes underlying the foundation of life cannot be explained by natural selection or by any other mechanism based purely on chance. When examined with the powerful tools of modern biology, but not with its modern prejudices, life on a biochemical level can be a product . . . only of intelligent design. Coming from a practising scientist . . . this proposition is close to heretical.”
Heresy or not, David Berlinski, a noted American philosopher has pointed to the fact that “scepticism regarding Darwinian orthodoxy has now exploded out of its evangelical Protestant ghetto”. “No one”, says Berlinski, “in the evolutionary camp can propose to defend Darwin without meeting the challenges that Behe has set out in his book – it’s really quite compelling.”
It is encouraging to see compelling criticism of evolutionary theory coming from leading scientists. If the present trickle of such books turns into a flood, it would seem unlikely that the foundations of Darwinism can survive. The question arises, What will take its place? The only alternative is belief in an intelligent designer. Put more scripturally, there is no alternative to belief in God as creator and sustainer of the whole universe. Yet without God providing the means of presenting to the masses the basic message of the Bible – law and gospel – one hesitates to be overly optimistic about a return to a more reasonable view of how life came about in this world.
There is no doubt that Satan’s hold on this generation has been immensely strengthened by the almost universal belief in evolution. People have been persuaded that the Bible’s explanation of the origins of life has been discredited by science and so it is very difficult to convince them of the truth of any of the other doctrines of Scripture. They assume that the Christian religion is, from start to finish, utterly unreasonable. On the other hand, if scientists who are respected in their own sphere demolish the creaking foundations of evolutionary theory, a great obstacle to the success of the gospel is removed at a stroke. We must not deceive ourselves that the refutation of evolutionary theories will of itself bring about a revival of true religion. Of course not. But we may look to the God who works by means to make the theory of evolution as incredible in the eyes of the majority as the doctrine of creation is at present. And we must look to Him to give an outpouring of the Holy Spirit to apply to the souls of multitudes the Word preached throughout the world.
Yet there arises in one’s mind a set of niggling questions: “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?” Yet, if the Lord were to hear the cry of His Church beseeching Him to send out labourers into the harvest, we would have reason to hope that all the fortifications of Satan’s kingdom would be swept away before the power of His Word preached world-wide with divine power.
Spurgeon may have been over-optimistic in expecting the pretensions of evolutionary theory to have been exploded within 20 years. Yet it is not too hard for the Lord to transform the whole outlook of our generation so that within 20 years, not only would the theory of evolution be everywhere regarded as a spent force, but the whole world be in a completely different condition spiritually. May the Lord grant it!