Retrial: Darwinism in the Dock

Retrial: Darwinism in the Dock Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species, “If any complex organ, unlikely to have been formed by many successive and minor modifications, can be proved to exist, my theory will collapse completely.” Some Darwin enthusiasts regard his earlier statement as a call to challenge, while followers attribute it to the suspicion and distrust inherent in his theory of the origin of species. Whatever the intent, our thesis in your hands today is a response to Darwin’s call to challenge, or an affirmation of his skepticism. What is life, and how does Darwinism explain its complexity? What are these irreducibly vital systems, and how do you look at the challenge of Darwinism? * Do these systems win Darwin’s challenge and fulfill his prediction of the collapse of his theory, or do they confirm that Darwinism remains stable despite the challenges? How did Darwinists deal with this dilemma, and was Kenneth Miller able to overcome it and refute it, as he claimed during his testimony in the trial of intelligent design in the Dover region? Is the conflict over the interpretation of life in general, decided by the court? Or will the trial force us to re-trial? Here we try to answer these questions, so follow the retrial with us. - What's life? It is the difference between living and dead, life and inanimate life. Thus our ultimate knowledge of life has remained locked within the confines of this characterization. Life is the greatest mystery that has puzzled philosophers, disabled biologists and, indeed, successive generations of researchers. Even so, the Spirit is the mysterious being within every living creature, distinguishing it from the inanimate and leaving its body at death. The Jews asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about what our Lord has revealed to him. Since the beginning of the scientific revolution, there has been an ongoing conflict in the biological knowledge community over the characterization and origin of life, in which opinions have been divided into two camps: one declaring that living organisms are not at all different from inanimate matter, and they have sometimes called themselves mechanics, or physicalists. On the opposite side stands the camp of the Vitalists, who advocated the view that organisms have properties that cannot exist in inert matter, and that biological concepts cannot be subject to the laws of physics and chemistry. From the 17th century on, life established a firm approach and posed a powerful obstacle to materialist mechanistic philosophy, which claimed that the animal was a machine, and that all aspects of life were matter in motion. Life adopted the idea of a special substance and a vital force that did not exist in the inanimate objects that characterized life, and many of the followers of that school were teleologists who believed that life existed to an end. The clinging of life to the existence of this enigmatic vital force precipitated its downfall; as a metaphysical rather than a scientific idea, it almost disappeared from the scientific scene at the beginning of the 20th century and the rise of materialist philosophy and a secular approach to biology. In the late 19th century Darwinism came with a strong materialism, as a way out of the general Anglican religious thought that dominated the biological landscape, denying the existence of universal purpose, and replacing it with the concept of natural selection to lead biodiversity, through the principle of struggle for survival, in addition to the approach of simplification and elevation, which attempts to overcome the complexity of life, at a time when the study of nature was a path to knowledge of God. (Bridgewater Treatises), the famous scientist William Paley who wrote the famous book Natural Theology, in which he founded the idea of design, and put forward his famous argument about the watchmaker. The summary is that if the thrown rock does not draw attention to the existence of complexity, but the clock on the ground draws attention and indicates the existence of a maker, and the same applies to living things. However, it is ironic that one of the most important reasons for the fall of life is what proved true later with the process of scientific progress, despite the failure of life to solve the mystery of this distinctive material of life, which they then called the protoplasm, biologists today know that life was right to protest the distinction of the organism from the inanimate with amazing features, revealed successively with the progress of science, the most important of which is the genetic information program (DNA). - What's a biosystem? In 1931, geneticist and evolutionary biologist J. S. Haldane declared that biologists did not seem to abandon life because it was a metaphysical idea in physical characterization. At the same time, he was saying that no purely mechanical analysis could explain this amazing consistency of life. Thus, despite the decline of the idea of life from the leadership of the biological destination, the idea of the mechanistic flattening mechanism did not dominate the scene, as much as it paved the way for the emergence of another school that received the banner from its predecessor, and carved its material destination by following the physiochemical approach to explain the biological system, and called organicism. Although this approach has been qualified to describe many biological processes at the molecular level, it is completely lacking in its ability to explain why, how, and why the amazing formative integration of an organism occurs. The higher the level at which testing takes place on the path of integration of organism formation, the higher the failure rate and the lower the expectations. After looking at the microscope, scientists found that the lives of diverse organisms, humans, animals and plants, are the result of the cooperation of hundreds of billions of invisible individual cells, which specialized in their functions so highly that none of them can live alone, so the task of scientists is to understand the functions of individual cells and how to cooperate; Because the visible sphere of the world did not provide an explanation for life. It seemed to them, then, that if they could know why these millions of cells, all bred in each neighborhood of a fertilised egg cell, had evolved teleologically into so many different types of highly functionally specialized cells, then they had the secret of life. The issue of cellular diversity remains unresolved to this day, and what has complicated matters further is the discovery by scientists of a higher layer of complexity below the cellular level within the depth of the cell itself, and this path was a first step in the field of molecular biology, which gave us a lot of questions and complex puzzles, instead of giving us the answers. The question remained: how does this cell accomplish its tasks, and what are the factors that regulate its multiple functions in each harmony? The scientists described the organisms as highly complex systems, on multiple levels and layers; their characteristic properties depend on (organic organization) rather than on (organic structure of the organism), so the association of the whole with its parts in the world of life is not limited to quantitative integration, but also includes the resulting control of the whole over its parts, and understanding of living organisms must be done from a holistic perspective. Without regard to the device from which it was extracted, which other biologists have summed up in a brief phrase: the whole, something different from the sum of its parts. Thus, the description of isolated parts cannot convey an image of the characteristics of the biological system as a whole, nor can it explain its existence, as what controls the whole device is what connects these parts of a system called organization. The integration of parts is based on each level of formation; in a single organism, the integration takes place in the cells, and then between those cells, the tissues, the organs, the organic organs in which integration completes the entity of the individual. How does this system work? What is the secret of its existence? Has Darwinism, the bearer of the banner of materialistic explanation, succeeded in explaining it? Or are there other alternative theories? This is what we will try to explore in the following sequence.(2)(3) Biocomplexity in the face of Darwinism When Darwin saw the similarity in muscle and body structure across many species, he did not have sufficient knowledge of the enormous complexities inherent within these devices at such an early time in the history of science, but he nevertheless recognized the magnitude of the problem facing his hypothesis; the structure of complex biological organs within living entities, which he called "extreme perfection and Complication" devices. In front of the splendor of these vital designs Darwin stands helpless, writing about the composition of the eye in his book (The Origin of Species): "The assumption that the eye, with all its extraordinary powers to adjust concentration at varying distances, to allow for different amounts of light, and to correct spherical and color deviation, has been formulated by natural selection, seems absurdly absurd, I admit." From the first moment, the overly perfected bio-organisms have declared a clear challenge to the hypothesis of gradual and slow evolution adopted by Darwinists as a natural physical explanation for the occurrence of life independent of design. Darwinism assumes that these bio-organisms undergo during the journey of their alleged development a series of intermediate and successive stages, during which natural selection formulates its adaptation gradually, maintaining the changes of the functional phase, and destroying the invalid or less adapted. Adaptive during the development of the organ, they are just defective organs that represent a burden that must be eliminated. Natural selection is a process that has no purpose, is blind to the vision of the future, has no goals, and the only two evaluation criteria are success in survival, and success in reproduction. This must be available at every step of the change in the emergence of the vital organ, but the non-reducible nature of vital organisms that do not accept career progression or decline, this process fails completely, it is either a whole or never will be. Although Darwin acknowledged the magnitude of this problem, he dealt with it with a crooked methodology, transferring the burden of proof to the skeptics, asking them to prove the error of his claim, which he is supposed to demand to prove as an original to accept his hypothesis, because of his firm awareness that it is a lost round, he said in his book The Origin of Species: "If it can be proved that there is any complex organ which is unlikely to have been formed by many successive and minor modifications, my theory will collapse altogether." We have to realize that Darwin was clever in dealing with the obstacles to his hypothesis, and he used clever paranoia, hoping that those obstacles would be solved later, and in return he conceded the complete collapse of his hypothesis if it could not be overcome. Many decades have passed since Darwin's proposal, which represents a very long time on the scale of the course of modern science, and the obvious question remains: Have his students succeeded in overcoming these obstacles? - The biggest obstacle. With the enormous scientific advances in observing spectacular biological complexity, it was assumed that the difficulties of explaining that complexity would increase by upgrading and scaling in this age, compared to Darwin’s. By contrast, Darwin was more reasonable and consistent than his followers in the face of problems of complexity. For example, Darwinism presents a simulation of eye development, explaining how a light-sensitive spot like a primordial vision system gradually turns into a highly concave, subdued cavity, then a ball-half filled with transparent matter, and then into what it is now in more complex eyes, basing itself on the alignment of models of different eyes in organisms today, from the simplest to the most complex. The problem here lies in a systematic error of inference about evolution based on the characteristics of some of the eyes present in the present day. By no means can the historical eyes that are supposed to represent the ancestors be represented by the narrative of a series of existing eyes that are possessed by modern living species. This approach requires Darwinism to recognize that these modern simple eyes in the early evolutionary chain are analogs of, and similar to, the supposed eyes of ancestors, and this places them in a real embarrassment; because it thus asserts that those eyes have not evolved or changed since time immemorial, which contradicts the entire evolutionary hypothesis about the process of evolution itself. When we try to deal with the previous evolutionary argument about the alignment of the eye development as an example, we just go into the first steps of testing it, we directly encounter a lot of contradictions, and we observe a serious violation of what Darwinism sets itself of mechanisms, obligations and rules within the framework of general inference of evolution. This is not surprising, but nevertheless its followers do not despair of looking for justifications to overcome it, and most of them fall under the framework of circular arguments, or painkills. For example, Darwinism tells us that the ancestors of molluscs have diverged from vertebrates during a remarkable time in the history of life, in the Precambrian, which makes humans more closely related to starfish and earthworms than to octopus, so we are supposed to see the primitive human eyes in the series in both octopuses, but it is a surprising fact that octopuses do. The structural match between an octopus eye and a human eye is a mystery that defies randomness. genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1555/F1.expansion.html This enormous leap in eye formation across the alignment chain, cannot be explained by the descent of any common ancestor, and stands in isolation in the face of the evolutionary scenario that is inferred by the gradualness of current eye models as a representation of their ancestors, and as usual, the evolutionists cannot bear the consequences of their hypotheses, we find them evaded by arguing that both the octopus and humans represent cousins of a very ancient ancestor, who lived in precambrian times. This response is what concerns us now from the previous example, and therefore we wonder: If living organisms cannot represent the ancestors and do not express them, why do evolutionists invoke the matrices of existing organisms to justify the sequence of eye development?! The above example is no exception, as discrepancies have been observed on a large scale, with scientists observing that the eyes in three major species categories (vertebrates, arthropods, and molluscs) originate from different tissues, from which evolutionists postulated that these three categories have separate evolutionary histories, and many of their similarities have also resulted from convergent evolution. Such extreme contradictions in the proposed historical course of eye development have led evolutionists to assume that they have evolved more than forty times independently, spoiling the alignment scenario, and confirming its futility in reasoning.(8)(9) In addition, this model contradicts geological records that do not support this alleged gradient, and shows the sudden appearance of complex eyes, in all their compositions known today, more than 540 million years ago in what is known as the Cambrian era, and indicates its stability since its existence at first glance, and its evolutionary origin is still a real mystery. By going beyond this flawed approach, we turn to the focus of our discussion of this major problem blinded by Darwinism, the mechanism of this transformation required to produce this complex eye system. Each successive DNA mutation within the eyeball requires radical, simultaneous, and highly complex transformations, bonding within bone and nerve structure, and brain function, and hundreds of evolutionary pathways must be pursued simultaneously by active mutations in all aspects of vision, such changes requiring much more than would be expected from random mutations and natural selection. To approximate the difficulty of this process by taking just one measure, the number of genes responsible for eye production, we find that so far 501 eye-related genes have been identified in the primitive insect (fruit fly), equivalent to 3.5% of the size of its entire genome. In more complex organisms such as vertebrates, more than 7,500 genes interfere with the structure and organization of the retina, about 30% of all human genes, so simultaneous mutations on so many pathways and genes are a terrible hypothesis, transcending logic, and increasing with the higher levels of integration between the parts of the eye that make up the eye. Such integration and organization has led physiologist Scott Turner to call the process of vision a miracle, and he says that the miracle of true vision lies in that computational process it can produce. All these different systems must work together as an integrated unit to achieve vision. In a special paper examining less complex members of an ant-lion anatomy, Pierre P. Grasse wonders about the possibility of such complex systems being produced by natural selection acting on random mutations, about the chances of such simultaneous mutations being able to do so, and the feasibility of these mutations in producing structures that fit neatly together.[16] Even the simplest and most primitive systems of vision (light-sensitive spots) – exploited as initial links in the chain of evolution – require a large and complex set of enzymatic systems in place and at the right time to function, which is itself incredibly complex and irreducible. In a recently published paper from Baylor University Medical Center titled (Characteristics of Darwinism), Dr. Joseph A. Kuhn points out that while many physicians study the enormous complexity of the human body, they can accept the selection of some mutations that work to resist malaria, skin characteristics, and many other minor changes that cannot transform the species. Many examples from within the human body of specialized and irreducible complex systems, which cannot be formed by successive mutations, where all components must be present to function properly, include complex systems (vision, balance, respiratory system, circulatory system, immune system, digestive system, skin, endocrine system, taste), and other examples of biochemical and anatomical levels and organ functions. Kuhn points out that Darwinism has no actual explanations for the irreducible origin of a complex system, let alone an interconnected network of irreducible systems, which make up the human body as a whole. - Everything... or nothing. Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a theorist of intelligent design, is exploring another layer of irreducible systems at the molecular biochemical level in micro-life. Behe defines an irreducible complex as a complex system of many parts that interact very harmoniously to produce the function assigned to the system, and it follows that the removal of one of its parts disrupts this system and stops it from functioning. This means that all its parts are designed from the beginning, so it cannot be the product of small gradual mutations that are elected, evolution cannot build complex biochemical processes step by step, because these steps can not provide any advantage to the bearer, this means that natural selection will not select this evolutionary growth, and will not allow an incomplete and ineffective system to spread from generation to generation, it only proves the functional changes, which are missing by the existence of those systems, which do not know their function. Behe uses the mousetrap as a rough example to explain his idea of irreducible complexity; it cannot work if it loses any of its parts (base, spring, catcher, hammer), and not only do all of the parts exist at the right time and place, but they must be precisely aligned so that they can do their job, making the random chance hypothesis insane. Behe moves on to explain many of these biochemical systems, including the light-sensing mechanism of the vision system, the human blood-clotting system, and the bacterial whip that many bacteria use for movement. The eye carries another layer of complexity at the exact biochemical level, and when light hits the sensitive cells in the eye, a series of quite spectacular successive molecular reactions occur, which can be likened to the collapse of compact dominoes when we drop the first piece, eventually leading to the transfer of the nerve impulse to the brain. If any molecule in this chain of dominoes is missing or defective, the nerve impulse cannot be transmitted, which simply means lack of vision and complete blindness, so this system cannot work at all unless all its parts are present at the same time. In his second example, a human blood clotting cascade, responsible for more than a dozen highly coordinated protein molecules, must interact with each other sequentially to produce a clot at the right time and place to stop possible bleeding. The third example is the bacterial flagellum, which looks like a long outer filament that helps push bacteria, enabling them to swim and move through the surrounding fluid. The flagellum moves with a fully mechanical mechanism. At the base of each flagellum is a rotating motor driven thousands of times per minute. A bacterial whip consists of a filament that is attached to the basal body by a medial piece called a hook. Bacterial whip simulates mechanical movement systems by means of water transport with the mechanism of spiral propulsion, by rotary engines can not work with the loss of one of its parts, and such a system does not accept the gradual in composition, evolution by natural selection and mutation must move hard to improve the functionality of one at every step, how can he build a device can not be reducible steps such as the rotary engine can not work at all unless all its parts in the right place?18 - Darwinist counterarguments In 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union, with the agreement of eleven families whose children are educated in schools in the Dover area of Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit against the District Education Board. The reason for this was that the Dover Area School Board decided to invite the students through a brief statement read to them for a minute, identifying them as another theory next to the theory of evolution, the theory of intelligent design. The basis of the lawsuit was that intelligent design is based on religious grounds, and therefore its teaching in science classes is contrary to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that Congress will not pass laws on any religious grounds. Kenneth Miller is one of the expert witnesses used by the prosecution in the case. Michael Behe, the expert witness for the defense, appeared during a friendly interrogation by the prosecution. Miller asserted that the theory of intelligent design is "not testable", so it is not science at all, but later during her testimony Miller contradicted this claim, and proved that it is testable theory, when he argued that science has tested the argument of the uncontested system. Turning a blind eye to Miller’s paradox, which neither the judge nor the jury paid attention to at the time, let’s see how Behe’s argument about irreducible complexity proved false: the insider can easily realize that Miller based his testimony and numerous writings on the distortion of arguments and a misleading definition of the irreducible system, and then refutes this misleading and distorted idea he created himself, committing a logical trick he is good at. Miller's definition of an irreducible system, claiming that its argument is that its component parts are gradually rendered functionally out of it, can be disproved if a secondary function of these parts is found in other systems, and uses the example of Behe (a mouse trap) to demonstrate that by removing one of its parts and using it as a pin for the neckband, he claims that the concept of irreducible complexity in a bacterial whip has been disproduced. To define Miller's trick and trick in testing the non-reducible system, we give this example: since we have found that both the computer and the electric stove have the power cord responsible for connecting the power supply, then we conclude that the computer is no longer an irreducible complexity, because the computer requires a number of parts needed for secondary functions in other devices. We know very well that the availability of some parts of the computer we are using now or all of its parts elsewhere does not replace those smart steps that must be responsible for the assembly of all parts at the right time and place, according to a construction scheme in advance and instructions directed, and the right way to explain its complexity is to follow all the steps of its installation. Casey Luskin sets forth a fascinating pictorial approach to Miller's earlier logic, in a critical essay he published on the course and events of Dover's trial, exemplified in the interpretation of irreducible complexity through the shape of a bow. Figure A: As a complex, irreducible function, arc is divided into many pieces, including T and S pieces. Figure B: By lifting the T-block of the bow the bow collapses, but the S-block remains marked with no value. Through the previous diagram we ask the question: has the presence of the base cell (S) of the bow explained or disproved the irreducible complexity of the bow? Of course not. If we represent the piece (S) with the base of the T3SS injection needle, its commonality with the whip did not disprove the irreducible complexity of the whip structure, and failed to explain it completely, the only real test that can disprove this system is the ability of random mutations and natural selection. If we give a more appropriate example, and compare the bacterial whip to an external propellant for a boat, and the T3SS injection system as a water sprayer, then until we can install both on the boat’s back – which in turn represents the bacteria’s body – we have to use the Tokyo anchor rule, from which we can say that it is naive to conclude that having the base anchor part of the water spray is as good as denying the undiminished complexity of the external engine. - What are the requirements for refuting a complex, non-reductive system? In order for Darwinism to truly test the origin of a functionally irreducible integrated molecular machine, it must follow the following steps and conditions, summarized according to Angus Menuge: First: Availability and availability of all the necessary parts to form the required system. Second: The location of the parts at the construction site at the time it requires their presence. Third: coordination and compatibility for those parts in the correct position, and appropriate installation in the system according to the appropriate time and place, to interact correctly within the system. Violation of one of these conditions fails the test, and confirms its invalidity, and the fact that we have clearly observed that Miller in his test only provided a small part of the first condition, which is to make the base part of the injection needle and the whip, which represents only 20% of the components of the whip, and did not explain the presence of the most complex rotor parts in the whip, or find it similar to any other secondary function in any other system. Miller falsely claimed, and sworn before testifying, that Behe had assumed that there was no secondary function for parts of the system in other structures, which according to his claim could later adapt to produce the new system, and he called it the Co option or Exaptation hypothesis, which has been coined to express characteristics that appear in one functional context, before being exploited in another, where a particular trait that served another function could be transformed into another. A famous example of pre-adaptation is "bird feathers", which Darwinism assumes exists to warm animals in ancient times, before adapting as a major factor in flying, and such stories of naivety in a place, where they can only serve as bedtime stories that were told to us by grandmothers; feathers in its current form were specially installed and distributed to help fly, and the fact that it carries another function useful in insulation and heating does not mean at all that it is an adaptation of this function. It falls under the fallacy of attacking a straw man. From that point of view, Judge Jones put in the reasoning of his judgment that Behe was ignorant of the mechanism of prior adaptation to explain the transformation of function, and the fact that it is Justice Jones who is completely ignorant of such specialized issues, Behe addressed this argument in detail through his book (Darwin's Black Box) when he talked about how to use a set of pieces that have secondary functions in other systems, as in the development of movement in bacteria, and explained by his famous example the mouse trap. This is the secret of the effectiveness of the argument, because even with all the necessary parts required (such as the base, the spring, the stop stick), they have to fit together precisely, otherwise the trap will be a failure and will not work. Evolutionists are well aware of the magnitude of the problem, and then argue that based on the pre-adaptation argument that seemingly irreducible complex biological systems are constructed in indirect ways by a process similar to scaffolding, which can help lift the construction, deliver components to their place in the system until they are complete, and then remove these parts (scaffoldings). The problem here lies in answering this central question: On the other hand, based on such an analogy, the process of constructing lashings for complex buildings by analogy is an intelligent process that is the product of a controlled, not random, engineering directive, requiring precise scaffolding to be directed at a specific place and removed at a precise time. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, and head straight to test this hypothesis, creating a hypothetical model of a molecular machine consisting of protein components (A, B, C, D), which interact with each other to produce the biological function assigned to that biological machine. Figure 1: Components (A, B, C, D), react to produce biological function. If this biological function can only be created by the interaction of the preceding components, then evolutionists must invoke the preadaptation hypothesis to explain their occurrence, in which it is assumed that each protein part (A), B, C, and D) originally had previous secondary functions. It then interacts with other proteins over evolutionary time, and the system as a whole undergoes repeated processes of functional transformation, which is the essence of preadaptation, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Components carry secondary functions unrelated to the main function of the total system, and must produce a new function with each step incrementally in order to shift it to another step. We are well aware that molecular machines are built from individual parts of proteins. Salmonella’s bacterial flagellum consists of 42 protein parts, including MotA and MotB (kinetic proteins), FlgE (axis), etc. These protein parts interact with each other in a very precise integration, determined by their three-dimensional shapes, which are interlaced to harmonize and cooperate to produce the function assigned to the final system, with which they must be matched by proteins. Figure 3: We see a complex machine consisting of five elements (proteins), which are A, B, C, D, E. These proteins are complementary to each other; element A is complementary to (B, C, D), and element D is complementary to (A, C, E). The pre-adaptation scenario leads us to believe that machine parts from A to E were originally operating in different contexts, and each was formed independently by natural selection. Then these parts came together to integrate into the new function, but in this integration step, the role of the macro-selective is completely eliminated, and the only factor controlling the integration of these parts within the new system is chance alone, there is nothing in natural selection that will push the alignment of the forms of proteins to each other, and it is important to remember what we explained earlier that evolution is non-terminal, and has no foresight, unlike the engineer who moves according to a prior construction plan, putting the scaffolding in place. As Scott Minnich and Stephen Meyer point out, even with the proteins needed to form a rotating bacterial whip, they must follow a correct time sequence just as a car is fitted during its manufacturing steps, and for that to happen they need a pre-structural system of code and genetic instructions, and the assembly and assembly tools of specialized molecular protein machines to translate and execute those instructions.25 From the above it is clear that the central evolutionists' argument about prior adaptation is utterly helpless in explaining and originating biocomplexity, and it is also clear that Miller did not in any way come close to refuting irreducible complexity, but turned the criticism to attacking the strawman he created by twisting and reducing Behe's argument, thereby putting the test on the wrong track. In fact, the premise of the common choice of transforming functions and adapting them to another is just another trick of the famous Darwinism passing tricks, which Stephen Jay Gould created many of them to escape from the problems, but he has only presented to evolution a kind of adaptation of the problem and turn its course into twisted side roads, which do not offer any solutions. - Which was first found; the bacterial whip, or the T3SS injection system? All of the above scenarios are based on a critique of the scenario of bacterial whip evolution from a simpler system, the T3SS injection needle as predicted by Darwinism. What if we knew that the test subjects were in favor of the exact opposite scenario; studies assume that the bacterial whip was prior to the appearance of the injection needles, and that the bacteria must have needed to push and move before the predation tools that are used to attack the probiotic Tukaryotes could also have evolved. Howard Ochman, a biochemist at the University of Arizona, points to the evolution of T3SS from a whip and not the other way around. - Knowledge gap, or positive evidence? There is no doubt that the idea of science’s hostility to religion in the West is due in large part to that ancient, superficial theological legacy, which put false proof of the existence of God limited to a kind of miracle, linked to what we cannot explain, and the adoption of that degrading idea that God exists only in the unexplainable part of the world was the rope that theologians wrapped around their necks, and thus the golden opportunity to finish the important secularism easily, and leave the chair under theology. Therefore, we can not stress the blame on materialism in its famous term (God of the gaps of knowledge), but on the other hand, we find that it is important to correct the concepts, and redirect the concept to its path, so changing the prevailing idea about epilepsy and knowing its causes, and correcting the idea that it is dressed in an evil spirit, and that its treatment lies in bringing God's miracles of seeking to know the truth, in fact it is not considered a demolition of God and a decline of his role in the material solution. The success of materialism in explaining the workings of the complex machine, which once seemed to some to be magic and miracle, cannot negate the existence of a maker of that machine and is due entirely to natural laws, claiming the power of those laws to make them; on the contrary, it must increase our certainty in the maker's ability and ingenuity, and confirm our conviction of the inevitability of wise design. On the other hand, the knowledge gaps surrounding an issue - assuming it is true - should give the investigator an impression of neutrality or agnosticism about that issue, and not to preempt the judgments about it, but while the proponents of materialism claim to use the God of gaps to fill those gaps, they in turn give it to another God; is (random coincidence), and the natural physical interpretation to fall under the same frame of accusation to fill the gaps. In order not to go too far in sub-details, the above reference can be sufficient to shed light on the popular claim, propagated by proponents of materialism, that non-reductive biocomplexity cannot be regarded as positive evidence in support of design, as much as it is negative evidence based on the exploitation of knowledge gaps related to the ignorance of the mechanisms of emergence of these vital organs, which can be bridged in the future. These systems show signs of wise design that are impossible to explain through random natural processes, and by a simple measurement we can realize that fact, if someone finds a polished stone cave in the mountains, he will conclude that it was made by a designer, but he will also not justify the same claim if he finds random rock pieces of the same size. - Specialized complexity Life is characterized by a complexity that fails to match any non-living complexes, as they are only random complexes in which small units are linked through chemical bonds such as crystal stones. In molecular sequencing models of functional biological molecules, such as the informational system of life known as DNA, William Dembski called it “specified complexity” and defined it as a clear sign of intelligent design: “When something exhibits specialized complexity, that is, when it is simultaneously complex and specialized, we can say that it was produced by an intelligent cause, rather than by natural processes.” Specialist complexity is a system that not only involves random complexity, but specializes complexity to perform specific roles and tasks. Dembski uses the following example: * Alphabet is a specialist without being complicated. A long sentence of random characters is a complication without being a specialist. A Shakespeare poem is a specialized complication. Dembski proposes a mathematical model of specialized complexity rationing, in the framework of what he defines as a "complex probability limit": if the number of elementary particles within the universe is 8010, and the number of physical processes that can occur per second is 4510, and the age of the universe since the Big Bang in seconds is 2510, then the multiplication of the preceding factors can give us the maximum probability of events that could have happened to elementary particles, from the Big Bang to now. Returning to the question we asked in the introduction about the secret of the existence of the biological system, we can now imagine the answer to it, under the scientific progress in the field of (molecular biology), which gave us a deeper insight into its flow, and revealed to us, with that progress, that a lot of important interactions between the components of any organism do not take place on the physicochemical level, but on an integrated level that is higher than it is alive, is the information program represented in the DNA. This program can be considered the common denominator between all living organisms from bacteria to humans, which serves to guide the parts to bond in these vital systems accurately and drive them, and carries the blueprints of the building of the organism and its functions in all its amazing details. Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist and astrophysicist, points to this fact: "By deferring life to the laws of physics or chemistry we see it as magical; it behaves in extraordinary ways that are unparalleled in any other physical or chemical system; it carries vibrant properties characterized by independence and adaptability, goal-oriented behavior, and harnessing chemical reactions to pass a pre-programmed agenda, rather than being a slave to those interactions." “We now know that the secret of life is not in the chemical components as such, but in the logical structure and organizational arrangement of the molecules, life is the information processing system, and the program of the living cell is the real secret, not the hardware, but where did the program come from? This knowledge gap claimed by proponents of the materialist approach about the source of programs and vital information is in fact only an artificial gap promoted, in order to escape the results of systematic analyses in this regard. In contrast, much of the research involved confirms the imperative of leading the design to create such bioinformatics programs. In a paper entitled “In the Beginning Was Information” by Geit Werner, professor of physics and director of the information processing department at the Institute of Physics and Technology Braunschweig, he concludes that “a coding system always requires a mental process. In the same vein, L. Lester and Pauline R. Bohlin acknowledge this fact: "DNA is the code of information... The definitive conclusion is that this information cannot be created automatically through automated processes. Intelligence is originally a necessity for any information code, including genetic code."[32] - Conclusion. Through the previous sequential analysis, we conclude the following points: The organism is not an abstract accumulation of a set of vocabulary, but a precise, integrated system that does not accept reductionism or gradual evolution. Controls the process of this system (information program) structural and operational advance, representing a type of specialized complexity. The information program is impossible to explain its existence with the physicochemical approach and natural laws, it is an inevitable product of design, as proven by experiments and studies in this regard. Then you have to go to another place with God’s permission. References: (1) "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." Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species", Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189. (2) Ernst Mayr, "This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World", Harvard University Press, 1998. (3) David Quammen, "The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution (Great Discoveries)", W. W. Norton 2006. (4) Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species", Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 190. (5) "the crucial importance of this requirement to the theory of evolution was fully understood by Darwin, who stated that, in searching for the gradations through which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look at its lineal progenitors. Indeed we ought; though he himself could not do so. It is deceptive to the reader to create a seriation beginning with eye spots as seen in unicellular organisms and call them, as does Duke–Elder (1958), the earliest stage of evolution." Cousins, F.W., "The Anatomy of Evolution, Duffett Publications", London, p. 125, 2003. (6) Atsushi Ogura. et al, "Comparative Analysis of Gene Expression for Convergent Evolution of Camera Eye Between Octopus and Human", Genome Res. 2004. genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1555.short (7) Fernald, R.D., "The evolution of eyes", Brain, Behavior and Evolution 50 (4):253, 1997. (8) Frank Salisbury, "Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 338 (9) Fernald, R.D., "Eyes: variety, development and evolution", Brain, Behavior and Evolution 64(3):141–147, 2004; p. 1917. (10) Croft, L.R., "The Last Dinosaurs", Elmwood Books, Chorley, Lancashire, p. 57, 1982. (11) Land, M.F. and Nilsson, D.–E., "Animal Eyes", Oxford University Press, New York, p. 1, 2005. (12) Duke–Elder, S.S., "System of Ophthalmology. Volume 1: The Eye in Evolution", The C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis, p. 237–238 (13) Breidach, O. and Kutsch, W., "The Nervous Systems of Invertebrates: An Evolutionary and Comparative Approach." With a coda written by T.H. Bullock, 1995. (14) Fernald, R.D., "Casting a genetic light on the evolution of eyes", Science 313:1914–1918, 2006; p. 1914. (15) Turner, J.S., "The Tinker's Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself", Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 161, 2007. (16) "Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? ... have you ever beheld three, four or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinating effects? ... These are vital questions that demand an answer. There is no way of getting around them, or evading the issue. Every biologist who wants to know the truth must answer them, or be considered a sectarian and not a scientist. In science there is no "cause" to be defended, only truth to be discovered. How many chance occurrences would it take to build this extraordinary creature [Myrmelion formicarius]'?" Grassé, P.P., "Evolution of Living Organisms", Academic Press, New York, NY, p. 163, 1977. (17) Joseph A. Kuhn, "Dissecting Darwinism", Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). Jan 2012; 25(1): 41–47. (18) Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challengue to Evolution", 10th ed. (2006) Free Press, New York. (19) KITZMILLER, et al. v. DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. – Case No. 04cv2688 – Middle District of Pennsylvania Court. 20 Adel Mustafa, Logical fallacies, Supreme Council of Culture 2007, p 163. (21) Dr. Kenneth Miller Testimony, Day 1, PM Session, page 16. (22) Casey Luskin, "Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones's Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum.", CSC – Discovery Institute, April 19, 2006. discovery.org/a/3718 (23) Dembski, Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses , p 52. www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Rebuttal_Dembski.pdf (24) Angus Menuge, "Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science", p 104–105, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. (25) Scott A. Minnich y Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria", Discovery Institute p 8. www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB–download.php?id=389 (26) Dan Jones, "Uncovering the evolution of the bacterial flagellum," New Scientist (Feb 16, 2008). (27) Dembski. "Intelligent Design", p. 47 www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm (28) Dembski, (ed.) "Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design.", Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998, 209–213. (29) "To a physicist or chemist life seems like 'magic matter,'" Davies explained. "It behaves in extraordinary ways that are unmatched in any other complex physical or chemical system. Such lifelike properties include autonomy, adaptability and goal–oriented behavior –– the ability to harness chemical reactions to enact a pre–programmed agenda, rather than being a slave to those reactions." Skip Derra, "ASU researchers propose new way to look at the dawn of life", asu news Posted: December 12, 2012. www.asunews.asu.edu/20121212_dawnoflife (30) (a) Paul Davies, "The Origin of Life: Fifth Miracle", Penguin UK. (b) New way to look at dawn of life, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121212205918.htm (c) Origin of Life Needs a Rethink, Scientists Argue, www.livescience.com/25453–life–origin–reframed.html (31) "A coding system always entails a nonmaterial intellectual process. A physical matter cannot produce an information code. All experiences show that every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea–giver who exercised his own free–will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind." Werner Gitt, "In the Beginning Was Information", CLV, Bielefeld, Germany, pp. 107, 141. (32) "DNA is an information code. . . . The overwhelming conclusion is that information does not and cannot arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. Intelligence is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code, no matter how much time is given." L. Lester and R. Bohlin, "The Natural Limits to Biological Change", (Dallas, TX: Probe Books, 1989), p. 157 Ahmed Yahia — Source: Brahin Center website - Posted on 2014-05-04 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/evolution-design/إعادة-المحاكمة-الداروينية-في-قفص-الاتهام