Irreducible Complexity

irreducible means impossible to transform into or restore to a desired or simpler condition

The Big Bang theory states that long ago there was nothing but a vacuum fluxuation that scientist call a singularity - about the size of a dime. Then the singularity exploded and the universe was created - 10 to 15 billion years ago and the universe continues to expand from that explosion. The hubble space telescope has proven this expansion.

The large amounts of energy in the explosion form protons which then partially changed into quarks when then partially changed into neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of hydrogen, helium and lithium nuclei formed. The proton "changing" left a signature called cosmic microwave background.

Eventually the universe will collapse back again into the singularity (the big crunch) as gravity overcomes the explosive forces. And again the whole process repeats.

The three major arguments for this event (according to USC Berkley) are:

• Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
• Cosmic Microwave Background
• Hubble Expansion

From the big bang, the earth was formed, and a puddle of ooze lay there dormant...

"Oparin's theory envisioned a series of chemical reactions that he thought would enable a complex cell to assemble itself gradually and naturalistically from simple chemical precursors. Oparin believed that simple gases such as ammonia (NH3), methane (CH4), water (H20), carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) would have rained down to the early oceans and combined with metallic compounds extruded from the core of the earth. With the aid of ultraviolet radiation from the sun, the ensuing reactions would have produced energy-rich hydrocarbon compounds. These in turn would have combined and recombined with various other compounds to make amino acids, sugars, phosphates and other "building blocks" of the complex molecules (such as proteins) necessary to living cells. These constituents would eventually arrange themselves into simple cell-like enclosures that Oparin called coacervates. Oparin then proposed a kind of Darwinian competition for survival among his coacervates. Those that developed increasingly complex molecules and metabolic processes would have survived and grown more complicated. Those that did not would have dissolved.

Thus, cells would have become gradually more and more complex as they competed for survival over billions of years. Like Darwin, Oparin employed time, chance and natural selection to account for the origin of complexity from initial simplicity. Moreover, nowhere in his scenario did "mind" or "intelligent design" or "a Creator" play any explanatory role. Indeed, for Oparin, a committed Marxist, such notions were explicitly precluded from scientific consideration. Matter interacting chemically with other matter, if given enough time and the right conditions, could produce life. Complex cells could be built from simple chemical precursors without any guiding personal or intelligent agency."

When Darwin made his propositions, he did not know the degree of complexity involved in life's molecular systems. Now, we know that such systems are extremely intricate. Author Michael Behe says that many of these systems show "irreducible-complexity." That means that if any one of the many components is removed, then the system breaks down. This goes against a basic idea of evolutionary theory. This idea says that systems start out in a simple form, and then, driven by natural selection, gradually get better and better. In contrast, irreducible complexity says that the system is useless until it reaches, or comes close to its final form. Thus, natural selection could not drive evolution "from scratch." A reasonable alternative is that intelligent design accounts for complex biological systems.

"The Darwinian theory states that all living structures evolve in small, gradual steps from simpler structures - feathers from scales, wings from forelegs, blossoms from leaves and so on. But anything that is irreducibly complex cannot evolve in gradual steps, and thus is very existence refutes the Darwinian theory.

examples: eyes, feathers, bat wings, skeletal changes.