- Nov 15, 2007
Ok, so I'm at the bookstore tonight and I pick up the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist." I randomly open it to the chapter that deals with irreducible complexity. I'm familiar with irreducible complexity so it was not terribly enlightening but it did occur to me that I've never actually asked a proponent of macroevolution how they refute what appears to be the clear cut reality that certain systems, organisms, etc, could not have evolved in a piecemeal fashion through unguided, unintelligent, naturalistic processes. "Natural Selection" would've had no reason to selectively develop these systems, organisms, etc, without an end product in mind since they would be of no benefit to the organism whatsoever without all the necessary parts in place to make the system or function work. Even Darwin, in whose day I understand the contents of a single cell could not even be analyzed, said that if organisms were found that could not have evolved through very slight, successive modifications over extremely long periods of time his theory would fall apart. In light of irreducible complexity, it seems that Darwin, were he alive today, would have scrapped macroevolution himself a long time ago. So, what say you macroevolutionists? I'm not a molecular biologist by any stretch of the imagination. What am I missing here? And please, no refutations of the bombadier beetle...we get it. It's a really stale an argument at this point, as is the assertion that there's no difference between micro and macroevolution; which is so manifestly untrue it's not even funny!! Thanks!!