Darwin's Black Box Theory
Not only has macroevolution never been observed it is now being found to be impossible. Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box has proposed that organisms are "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Since all the parts of an organism are needed for the basic function the alteration of the system when a species is transitioning would cause the organism to die. Charles Darwin even said that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." With Behe’s conclusion
…show more content…
Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek in their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist agree, saying, “The irony for the Darwinists is this: if Intelligent Design is not science, then neither is Darwinism. Why? Because both Darwinists and Intelligent Design scientists are trying to discover what happened in the past. Origin questions are forensic questions, and thus require the use of the forensic science principles we already have discussed. In fact, for Darwinists to rule out Intelligent Design from the realm of science, in addition to ruling out themselves they would also have to rule out archaeology, cryptology, criminal and accident forensic investigations…” (156). Intelligent Design is also supported by cell structure and DNA. While giving an interview, science philosopher Stephen C. Meyer’s overviews the main argument of his book Signature in the Cell saying, “The DNA molecule is literally encoding information into alphabetic or digital form. And that’s a hugely significant discovery, because what we know from experience is that information always comes from an intelligence, whether we’re talking about hieroglyphic inscription or a paragraph in a book or a headline in a newspaper. If we trace information back to its source, we always come to a mind, not a material process. So the discovery that DNA codes information in a digital form points
Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek in their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist agree, saying, “The irony for the Darwinists is this: if Intelligent Design is not science, then neither is Darwinism. Why? Because both Darwinists and Intelligent Design scientists are trying to discover what happened in the past. Origin questions are forensic questions, and thus require the use of the forensic science principles we already have discussed. In fact, for Darwinists to rule out Intelligent Design from the realm of science, in addition to ruling out themselves they would also have to rule out archaeology, cryptology, criminal and accident forensic investigations…” (156). Intelligent Design is also supported by cell structure and DNA. While giving an interview, science philosopher Stephen C. Meyer’s overviews the main argument of his book Signature in the Cell saying, “The DNA molecule is literally encoding information into alphabetic or digital form. And that’s a hugely significant discovery, because what we know from experience is that information always comes from an intelligence, whether we’re talking about hieroglyphic inscription or a paragraph in a book or a headline in a newspaper. If we trace information back to its source, we always come to a mind, not a material process. So the discovery that DNA codes information in a digital form points