Irreducible Complexity

These molecular motors are absolutely indispensable to successful cell division in eukaryotes and thus constitute an irreducibly complex system. It therefore points forcefully and unequivocally to conscious intent.

Last week, I wrote an article highlighting the irreducible complexity of the DNA replisome. A reader asked me whether the complexity of the DNA replisome could in fact be used as an argument against intelligent design.

The DNA replisome is one of the most remarkable molecular machines, involving a complex of different proteins, each of which is very specifically crafted to fulfill its role in the process of replicating the genome in preparation for cell division.

Danaher’s critiques of irreducible complexity are poorly informed and based on misunderstandings of intelligent design and what its key defenders argue.

We are all familiar with thermostats — devices we use to regulate temperature, typically in central heating and air conditioning systems, as well as ovens, refrigerators, and water heaters. But did you know that our bodies also contain their own thermostat, which is responsible for maintaining our body temperature at the optimal level?

I recently read a paper from 2007 by two plant geneticists, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz-Albert Becker, from the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany. The paper presents a review of carnivorous plants, which, by employing “enormously different and ingenious trap mechanisms,” ensnare and digest insects.

The development of an egg cell and its activation in response to encountering a sperm cell exhibit exquisite design, being contingent upon multiple mutually dependent processes, all of which are needed for successful reproduction. When considered in conjunction with the incredible engineering features of the sperm cell and the seminal fluid, it would seem to put the thesis of design almost beyond question.

Several different structural components are necessary for the vertebrate sense of hearing. It strains credulity to suppose that an unguided process of random variation sifted by natural selection could assemble such a delicately arranged system. It instead points to a cause with foresight.

Muscle contraction — which we so easily take for granted — is an incredibly complex and elegant process, involving incredible engineering and design. To contend that the phenomenon of muscle contraction arose through a blind and undirected process, one tiny Darwinian step after the other, seems to me to strain credulity.

Muscle is one of the most fundamental of animal tissues. It is muscles that animate our bodies — allowing us to move, stand upright, breathe, and even speak. Muscles are precisely the sort of thing that we might expect a designer of embodied intelligent beings to produce.