If you pick it, it will bleed

Scabs can be a great source of pride for children, or even adults who are children at heart. A large scab indicates a wound suffered in action – a fall from a bicycle, a tumble down a rocky slope, or a skiing accident on ice-crusted snow. The larger the scab, the more one can savor telling the story of its origin, with rights to embellish the story implicitly given. As children, we were told to not pick our scabs, but such advice was akin to “don’t look down,” invariably producing the result Mom wanted to avoid. These hardened blood clots are also indicative of an irreducibly complex system. While the blood clot itself is relatively simple, the system that regulates the clotting consists of ten finely tuned processes. Says, Behe: “If you make a clot in the wrong place – say, the brain or lung – you’ll die. If you make a clot twenty minutes after all the blood has drained from your body, you’ll die. If the blood clot isn’t confined to the cut, your entire blood system might solidify, and you’ll die. If you make a clot that doesn’t cover the entire length of the cut, you’ll die. To create a perfectly balanced blood-clotting system, clusters of protein components have to be inserted all at once. That rules out a gradualistic Darwinian approach…”[3] In order to explain how blood-clotting could have developed gradually, evolutionists are forced to paint vague word pictures with generalizations indicating that components “arose” or “sprang forth.” No scientists have effectively described how the components arose, and nobody has performed experiments to show empirically how this gradual development might have occurred. Moreover, the issue of how animals kept from bleeding to death while blood-clotting processes evolved is problematic for the evolutionists. The evidence points toward a creator, rather than evolution.

There are many more examples of irreducible complexity in biology, including aspects of protein transport, closed circular DNA, electron transport, cilia, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and much more. However, the examples given above are enough to show that Darwin’s theory of slow, successive changes fails to pass the acid test. Do irreducibly complex systems prove the existence of God? No, of course not. However, they are a major hurdle for Darwinian evolution, the pet theory of those who seek to eliminate God as the Creator of life. Good scientists will not allow pre-conceived notions to taint their work, and evolutionists will wag a finger at creationists and intelligent design proponents and accuse them of biased research. However, evolutionists eliminate the possibility of a supernatural Creator at the outset, and discard evidence that points strongly toward design in nature. While almost every scientist will have a personal bias, the evolutionists are most profoundly known for letting their bias influence their work, rather than objectively following the facts to their most logical conclusion. These men and women on their humanist campaign of junk science will eventually learn the error of their ways, and they will be found without excuse: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse…. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles” (Romans 1:20,22-23)