The Key to I.D.

As Intelligent Design is thrown into the spotlight by our bonfire, I think it would be good for us to know what the key argument of Intelligent Design is. It's technical term is the Rule of Irreducible Complexity. In layman's terms, this basically means that organisms or machines need to have a certain number of working parts that work together for it to be considered an organism or machine. Michale Behe defines it as: "A single system that is composed of several interacting parts, where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning." He uses the example of a moustrap: "The mousetraps that my family uses consist of a number of parts. There are: (1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; (2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; (4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied; (5) and a metal bar that connects to the catch an holds the hammer back when the trap is charged. Now, you can't catch a mouse with just a platform, add a spring and catch a few more mice, add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces of the mousetrap have to be in place before you catch any mice. Therefore, the mousetrap is irreducibly complex."

What does this look like in nature? Consider the evolutionary explanation of how we got thumbs. An animal, several mutations away from a fully developed human, doesn't have any thumbs, only regular fingers, much like a dogs paw. Suddenly, there is a mutation, and the skin to hold a thumb appears on a hand. After that mutation, is passed on through the generations, a bone appears. After that mutation, cartilage, then knuckles, then tendons, etc. This process, although taking a long time, eventually leaves us with a fully functional opposable thumb. Now this sounds great, but there a lot of holes in the idea, some of them coming from Darwin himself.

Natural selection, the idea that the strong survive because they are more able to cope with their environment, makes mutation difficult. To look at the thumb example, the species begins to develop an opposable thumb will be hindered by its development until it is fully functional. They will be hindered in finding a mate, in gathering food, in defending themselves, etc. According to natural selection, this would classify the animal as injured or defective, and they would usually die off before they were even able to pass on this gene to another generation. Imagine if a worm were to begin to develop an eye. Each step in the process, whether it is having an eye socket, extra nerves run to the eye, developing the unique tissues that make up the eye, or even being able to actually see and process what you are seeing, would be a hindrance to the day to day activities of the worm. These changes, unless they all came at once, would cause the worms death rather than give it a better chance at life.

Now consider something infinitely more complex, the human body. There are so many pieces that make us what we are. What I.D. argues is that this could not have happened by coincidences strung together that happen to give us a cell, then more cells, than an organism, then animals, etc. The idea of irreducible complexity is that all of the pieces had to be there, fully functioning, at the same time in order for it to work and to be passed on to the next generation. This is an argument that Darwinian Evolution has no answer to.

I hope you find this information helpful as you prepare for our Bonfire on Friday night. See you there.

-Michael Behe: from "Signs of Intelligence- Darwin's Breakdown: Irreducible Complexity and Design at the Foundation of Life" pg. 93-94

Reflections on Friday Night

First of all, thank you to everyone who came and participated in a great evening together. As we thought through what Bonfires would be about, we wanted to focus on being together for a profitable time of singing, prayer, and discussion centered around God's Word. I believe we accomplished our goal. Here is what happened in case you missed it:

Singing:
I think the song that spoke to most of us was "In Christ Alone". This song has such a rich text that almost every line carries a theological weight, and a joy as well. Many students and leaders commented on various lines, referencing God's sovereignty, the freedom we have from sin, the finality of Christ's sacrifice, and the great joy we now have being chosen by God. I was very encouraged by our time singing together.

Discussion:
Our discussion centered around the issue of homosexuality and what the Bible has to say about it. At the beginning of our talk, we spoke about some key scripture verses that speak to the husband wife relationship and that speak against a homosexual relationship. I've already posted those passages in the previous post. Our time really got interesting when we began talking about how you would reason with someone who doesn't believe in the Bible. I played the devil's advocate and showed just how hard it is to reason with someone who won't listen to scripture or even to common sense. Things that are obvious to a believer, like looking at creation or even seeing the need for both genders in procreation, are overshadowed in a non-believers mind by their own sense of right and wrong which is still saturated in Christ-less sin.

We concluded that if you are in a discussion with someone who won't change their mind, no matter what you say, it is a fruitless discussion. This means that we need to sharpen our reasoning skills to understand when it is pointless to debate something. Also, even if we do with the debate about homosexuality or evolution or abortion, the person is still going to hell if they don't understand the gospel. That is why it is so important to not get side-tracked and to bring every conversation down to the level of "What is Truth". Here's what I mean.

To know what a person really believes, you have to first understand where they believe truth comes from. If they believe that the true standard of right and wrong comes from within themselves, then there really is no standard and we can do whatever we want. You can confront that person with a statement like, "Why is murder wrong? Perhaps it is wrong for you, but what about someone else who is okay with killing others? If truth lies within each of us, then everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want with no consequences." The absurdity of that statement should be apparent to anyone who is speaking reasonably with you.

Once you establish that there has to be some kind of truth outside of ourselves that gave us a sense of what is really right and wrong, you can move to talking about who or what gave us that truth. It must've come from somewhere. We know that that somewhere is God. Now you are talking about something that matters for eternity; the eternal God who loves us and sent His Son to die for sinners. Remember to move your conversations in that direction as much as possible.

I would love to read your feedback on our discussion. Feel free to ask more questions, make suggestions, or just leave a comment. See you at the next bonfire.