Michael Behe writes on the Principle of Comparative Difficulty: If a simple task is too complex, then a more difficult task is impossible. It’s a way to know when scientists are exaggerating. They make grandiose claims about what they can do, but fail to show evidence for their most basic claims.
If a high jumper can’t clear a five-foot bar, then he can’t clear a ten-foot bar.
If a swimmer can’t make it to the end of the pool, he can’t do 30 laps.
If scientists can’t give us a real picture of earth that’s not painted or Photoshopped, how could they give us pictures of distant planets?
If they can’t return to the moon, which is in our atmosphere, how can they go to Mars, which is supposedly 249 million miles away? (Nobody really went to the moon. But for the purposes of this post, we use their narrative).
Behe brings his Principle of Comparative Diffiiculty (PCD) to bear on Darwinism: If the theory of evolution can’t explain color patterns in animals, it certainly can’t explain how we went from from a one-celled organism to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. “If nutritionists can’t easily determine how one dietary factor affects health, evolutionary biologists can’t determine what affected the survival of long-dead animals,” he writes.
To use his analogy, a lawnmower is stored in a shed. The shed door is closed by a simple hook and eye latch. If evolution can’t explain the hook and eye latch, which only requires two parts working in tandem, it certainly can’t explain the lawnmower.
That’s how you know scientists are lying. Flat Earthers have been making memes on this concept for a while, noting that if we can’t get a cell signal in the foothills in 2019, how did they call the moon in 1969?
If a rocket can’t go faster than 500 mph to break the sound barrier, how will it reach speeds of 17,000 mph, or TEN TIMES as fast as a speeding bullet?
NASA’s astrophysicists give us images of distant stars, planets and galaxies, but they fail to explain the phenomena we observe right here on our stationary plane…why both “hemispheres” see the same side of the moon, for example, or how we see the same constellations for centuries on end.
Michael Behe is not a Flat Earther as far as I know. His focus is the failure of Darwinism to explain the complex machines found in nature. But his Principle of Comparative Difficulty applies perfectly to Flat Earth.