If you can’t observe it, test it, reproduce it or falsify it then it’s not science. At best it is a philosophy at worst it’s a religion.
Probably one of the most amazing propulsion systems is one found in a bacteria called a flagellum. This microscopic machine is driven by a motor with distinct mechanical parts it resembles a humanly designed rotary engine with a universal joint, bushings, a stator, rotor and a driveshaft with its own clutch and braking system. In some bacteria, it is clocked at a hundred thousand rotations per minute and it is near 100% efficient plus it can change directions in a split second.
This flagellum is one of many microscopic machines found within cells and represents irreducible complexity at its finest. Like a mousetrap, if you remove one component it has no function. And it was this biological machine that was at the heart of the legal challenges to intelligent design. For many evolutionists, this trial stood as confirmation that irreducible complexity was a discredited idea within intelligent design.
This became a court case because one school district put a disclaimer in their evolutionary curriculum giving students an option in understanding evolution in biology which included a reference to a book in the school’s library. For evolutionist this was blasphemy and thus the court case was instituted to stop this heresy. I find it odd that some think judges can be the arbiter of what is true and not true in science. The judge in this case, who we expect to be open-minded and impartial bragged he was going to watch a highly fictionalized movie concerning the scopes trial as he prepared for this case. So it was obvious to most in the intelligent design community that this was not going to turn out well. And sure enough, the judge ruled against the school district.
Now here are the interesting facts, the evolutionist had a biologist testify that this machine had evolved from another similar machine that looks somewhat similar yet had a completely different function. Kenneth Miller was the biologist that presented evidence against the concept that if you take parts away from the flagellum it would not be functional. He presented a machine called the type III secretion system that is missing 30 components of the flagellum yet it functions. But it’s function is completely different than the flagellum even though its structure looks similar. What he didn’t do in his research was point out that if you start to add back those 30 missing protein components each of them would have absolutely no function and thus natural selection would have eliminated them before the other 30 could have theoretically been added to make a functional flagellum. But that’s not the only problem with his argument after the trial it was later found that the flagellum preceded the type III secretion system. In other words it was found in nature before the type III secretion system. If that would have been known at the trial the argument would’ve disintegrated. Yet today most evolutionists think the type III secretion system destroyed the irreducible complexity argument that intelligent design puts forth.
This is much like the Miller-Urey experiment where even today many textbooks claim this experiment shows how life could have developed without any intelligence. The only problem with the Miller experiment is that it produced equal amounts of right and left-handed amino acids which would be toxic to life. That’s why Miller never repeated his experiment because he knew it was a failure even though his colleagues and the news media misrepresented it as a success.
It is interesting how these misrepresentations and falsehoods are components of Darwinism. One of the scientists that presented testimony in this trial indicating that evolution could account for the development of the flagellum from the type III secretion system published in research a year later that science had no idea how that progression could happen under Darwinian mechanisms. (From the origin of species to the origin of bacterial flagella in nature reviews microbiology)
Have you been led to believe that irreducible complexity has been disproven?
Do the facts of this misrepresentation change your view on irreducible complexity?
How does your worldview affect what you accept as science?