"...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). (Council of Orange: Canon 6)


  • Rev. John Samson
  • Rev. David Thommen (URC)
  • John Hendryx
  • Marco Gonzalez

    We are a community of confessing believers who love the gospel of Jesus Christ, affirm the Biblical and Christ-exalting truths of the Reformation such as the five solas, the doctrines of grace, monergistic regeneration, and the redemptive historical approach to interpreting the Scriptures.


    Community Websites

    Monergism Books on Facebook


    Latest Posts



    Ministry Links

  • « Purcell's Te Deum, Part 2 | Main | What is the Central Theme of the Bible? »

    Irreducible Complexity

    The progress in our knowledge of the irreducible complexity of life has rendered us truly "without excuse" when it comes to our attributing to the natural order that which God reserves for himself. Any person who can look at the mechanics of the cell, realize the order, the information, the complexity that makes any computer you are using to read this post look like a stick and a rock in comparison, and yet continue in the suppression of the God-instilled knowledge of His own existence is a person remaining in utter rebellion. - Dr. James White

    Posted by John Samson on July 21, 2010 12:10 AM


    First, I think the world is 6 to 8 thousand years old. God created it out of nothing. There is no way to be saved apart from faith in Christ. Only those who He foreknew will exercise such saving faith.
    Now having said all that, I think Irreducible Complexity (with a capital I and a capital C) is baloney. Face up, the etymology of the words should tell you it's not smart. 'Complex' means 'with parts'. Anything with parts can be broken down. Just because you or I can't imagine how the cell or the eye couldn't have evolved is no prove of anything (except our lack of imagination). Evidence alone won't convince someone with atheistic presuppositions. We must have better arguments than this.


    well, isn't that special?

    I obviously differ with your insight here.

    Here is where I will take a stand against it:

    Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.
    Ecc 3:12 I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live;
    Ecc 3:13 also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil--this is God's gift to man.

    Another thing, having peered into Science a bit myself I find these Words telling too:::>

    Ecc 7:13 Consider the work of God: who can make straight what he has made crooked?
    Ecc 7:14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider: God has made the one as well as the other, so that man may not find out anything that will be after him.

    It seems with what we now know, there simply are some things we now know we don't now know!

    You could consider that though?

    And so, however offensive it is to you, I apologize in advance and repeat those words above: "The progress in our knowledge of theirreducible complexityof life has rendered us truly "without excuse" when it comes to our attributing to the natural order that which God reserves for himself."

    Michael, I think you misunderstand my intentions. I agree that all men are without excuse and that the natural world reveals God's stamp upon creation. They suppress the truth in unrighteous. I am thoroughly convinced that macro-evolution cannot occur. I am not offended by what you think. I want to know what you think declaring Irreducible Complexity to unbelievers can accomplish. Behe says mousetraps and eyes could not have evolved. Here is a heathen's idea for how a mousetrap could've evolved -
    I work in medicine, and I've seen people who live unbelieving lives marvel at cellular biology, and declare there must be a creator. But this is not saving faith. Only a presuppositionalist argument, not an evidentiary one, can do justice to the Christian faith. Google "Van Til".


    you put so much in so few words, it has taken me a while just to go through everything.


    I think you asked: "I want to know what you think declaring Irreducible Complexity to unbelievers can accomplish.?"

    Alot if God anoints your words. Nothing if He doesn't.

    Here's the math: 0+God/100= 0/me, plus God One Hundred Percent of the time either way.

    It's all up to God electing and me obeying the Truth in obedience to the Faith Once delivered to the Saints.

    As for the rest, I would say that unbeliever's belief in his mousetrap has his merit imagination. the question is, will someone put up the money to reproduce his merit/imagination mousetrap and make him filthy rich off the carcasses of mice?

    Michael, let me cut the chase. Is it a good apologetic to tell unbelievers, "There seems to be no way for certain things to have evolved, so you need to believe God created them." ? No. Have you seen "Collision", the documentary? Christians and non-Christian don't begin with the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions. We begin with God and end up with Him in the end. They begin with no god but there own reason, and end up with only that. Both could be maligned as circular, but whose circle is wider? We can account for all the world. They must balk at morality, wonder, judgement and righteousness. Remember, biological, Darwinian macro-evolution is merely an expression of a philosophy which preceded it by hundreds of years. Even the defeat of Evolution would only be to treat a symptom, not the disease.


    ok, cut the chase then. I wasn't chasing anything here!

    You asked: "Have you seen "Collision", the documentary?"


    Should I?

    And if I should, why?

    Please excuse me if this is rude, but are you a Christian? You seem to be very flippant about "renewing your mind". 'Collision' does a good job of pointing to your incorrect assumptions about apologetics. How do you answer someone who says, "Give me a reason to believe the Bible!" If you do so, they will assume you believe what they do, that reason trumps the Bible. If you don't, they will think you unreasonable. Which is it?

    Robert, if you want to be rude, well, it's on you not me.

    I am not being rude. Yes, I am a Christian born again now being in ministry over 35 years.

    You make a remarkable statement about me: "You seem to be very flippant about "renewing your mind".

    How have I been flippant about renewing my mind? That is a work of God not man.

    You make this assertion: "your incorrect assumptions about apologetics."

    What is incorrect about my assumptions of apologetics?

    The Apostle Peter wrote:

    1Pe 3:14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
    1Pe 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
    1Pe 3:16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

    I would want to answer anyone who asked me: "Give me a reason to believe the Bible!" with gentleness and respect in a good conscience as the Apostle teaches in the citation quoted above.

    If someone who asked that had the same Holy Spirit in them as I have, they most likely would be in agreement with my answer, I suppose? If not, it is completely understandable that they would deem me unreasonable. The Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error are not compatible with each other. It would be like trying to unite oil with water.

    I don't have to and I should not strive with them about my beliefs. God opens the mind to believe. I should simply state what I believe as I did with you in my first response.

    As for the main comment posted from Dr. White, I still am of the same opinion towards you as I was at first. I differ apparently with you with regard to the knowledge of the irreducible complexity of life.

    Have you taken the time to examine the two Greek words translated into the one English word "knowledge" in 2 Peter 1 Peter uses in developing that chapter? If you have not, you might find it interesting to note the distinction the Apostle makes between the two, the "knowledge" I refer to from my quotes from Ecclesiastes as distinguished from the other "knowledge" Peter refers to also which is science knowledge that can be tested and by repetition established as a sound postulate of fact by science by method.

    Both knowledges, I propose, is what Dr. White is getting at in the quotation. I could be mistaken? Both reveal that at some point we simply realize what we know and by that we realize what we don't know by what we know since God through King Solomon has already established: "yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."

    Do I understand your statement above under "Irreducible Complexity" to be saying or implying that the message of the Gospel and/or God's Grace are such irreducible complexities and not able to be received/understood in a simple fashion as by a new born babe in Christ?


    No - the post is in reference to the cell and has nothing to do with that.

    Post a comment

    Please enter the letter "p" in the field below: