But the end to the Darwinian devastation is not yet. Gradualism by chance selection is ruled out also by the need for simultaneous and coordinated modifications in all the structures of the organism, not simply in one bone or muscle or tendon. Georges Cuvier, a nineteenth-century French naturalist, had already seen that animals could not gradually change one part (organ, muscle, or bone) independently of all the others. Speaking only of the limbs of meat-eating animals, Cuvier wrote: “[so] that the claws may seize the prey, they must have a certain mobility in the talons, a certain strength in the nails, whence will result determinate formations in all the claws, and the necessary distribution of muscles and tendons.” He goes on and shows how the turning of the forearm would require “special formations of the bones . . . thus affecting the shoulder-blade and its structure and the legs and other muscles.” The chances of all this happening at once are unimaginably impossible.
To top it all, Michael Behe, using his expertise in biochemistry, writes of what he calls irreducible complexity on the molecular level. By this terminology he means “a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition non-functional.” In his best-selling book, Darwin’s Black Box, Behe presents with great detail several examples on the molecular level that show in a compelling manner why gradualism could not possibly work. It is to Darwin’s credit that he openly admitted that his theory about the origin of species would “absolutely break down” if what is now called irreducible complexity were shown to be true. “If it could be demonstrated”, said Darwin, “that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Well, it has been so demonstrated clearly and convincingly.
What is likewise clear is that if macroevolution has occurred, science will have to come up with a far better explanation of how it happened than we have in Darwin’s effort. At the moment we find many statements but no credible explanatory evidence, together with rigid repetitions of disproved and dated ideas. There is nothing persuasive on the scene. What we do find in our world is an overwhelming display of evidence pointing to beauty, artistry, design … and an Artist. That this Designer has worked through a developing process in the physical cosmos seems clear. How he has operated and continues to operate in the living kingdoms still awaits additional enlightenment.
