I always recommend Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe when folks ask me about Intelligent Design, and more specifically, irreducible complexity. Behe masterfully explains how removal of key components from operational or functional machines can cause them to become non-operational and useless. Removal of the spring within a mouse trap for example or the retina within the human eye renders them non-functional and therefore “irreducibly complex.” For years, Dr. Behe has effectively cited the concept of irreducible complexity as evidence against the theory of unguided macro-evolutionary change driven by a series of minor structural variations. How could a wonderfully complex and functional organ such as the human eye have evolved from a series of non-functional mutations over long expanses of time? Irreducible complexity has also therefore suggested a purposeful or intelligent design of biological systems and modern man.

But in the most recent issue of Scientific American (July 2011) Trevor Lamb announced that he and his fellow researchers have “put the nail in the coffin of irreducible complexity” by uncovering each and every step associated with the evolution of the human eye. I’m not sure Lamb and his colleagues’ claim is completely true and I’m quite certain that they have not hammered the last nail in the proverbial coffin. For one thing, they failed to convince me that each and every step in the eye’s development is well documented in embryonic forms or more primitive species. Although I believe the jury is still out, Lamb and his team raise a very interesting perspective relative to the powers of evolution. What are the boundaries of evolution? Of course deeper questions are raised relative to the development of all life on earth and specifically, man. Is the development of life directed or non-directed? Are complex structures like the mammalian eye irreducibly complex or reducible and simply awaiting further research into gene mutations and structural homologies to uncover the answers?
 
I think defining the boundaries of evolution is a fascinating and worthwhile pursuit and I applaud the efforts of Trevor Lamb and other evolutionary biologists. Their good work expands our understanding of biological systems and their development. But make no mistake, the entire universe and all life within it came to be out of nothing. That smells and sounds like Creation to me. Although the process employed by the Creator to bring us into this form continues to baffle us, I fully support an open view to possibilities. What are we afraid of? Personally I believe our existence is indeed the result of intelligent design, but I also think the evidence is overwhelming that evolutionary change contributes to minor variations in form and function. Thanks Dr. Lamb, but I still embrace the concept of irreducible complexity and firmly believe I exist for a purpose and by design.