Irreducible complexity is a parasite

[KingMerv00]

Let me know if this post doesn't make any sense. I am unsure of how to word what I am thinking.

Many Christians see IC as proof of the existance of God. In fact, many say the great organization of the universe in spite of its "randomness" as the BEST sign of God.

If Darwin had never thought of evolution,would IC even exist? After all what is IC but a critque of evolutionary theory? Intelligent design and irreducible complexity are utterly dependent on the theories they are trying to debunk!

How can anyone claim that IC is evidence IN FAVOR of anything? It, at best, could only be seen as evidence AGAINST one school of thought. Right?

 

[phildonnia]

You're saying that Irreducable Complexity is an argument against Darwinism, but not an argument for Intelligent Design?

I don't know if the term "parasite" is appropriate; all scientific theories (ought to) generate counter-arguments. The existence of the counter-argument should not lend credibility to the original argument.

 

[CurtC]

I think his point is that IC, or ID either one, are not standalone theories, but that they are merely ways that people disagree with the Theory of Evolution.

It's often pointed out that ID is not a scientific theory, and this is pretty much why.

 

[CBL4]

I am fairly sure that IC was originally a 19th argument against evolution. Because it was easy to show that it was a bogus argument, no one ever cared about it. Then Behe and other ignorant people thought up the same idea and never bothered to see how it had been discredited before.

The classic IC argument is about how a mouse trap requires 5 pieces. With only 4 of them it is useless, so there is no way it could evolve go from 4 to 5. Of course, this ignores the fact that it could have gone from 6 (non-irreducible parts) to 5 irreducible one.

Since, I can show its falseness in 3 sentence, no one should give it a second thought.

CBL

 

[fishbob]

If Darwin had never thought of evolution,would IC even exist? After all what is IC but a critque of evolutionary theory? Intelligent design and irreducible complexity are utterly dependent on the theories they are trying to debunk!

How can anyone claim that IC is evidence IN FAVOR of anything? It, at best, could only be seen as evidence AGAINST one school of thought. Right?

Boiled down to simple terms, IC states that 'we don't understand how this works, so evolution must be false'. In the simpler terms, the logical fallacy is easy to identify. The only things IC is evidence for are ignorance and dishonesty.

 

[CurtC]

Re: Re: Irreducible complexity is a parasite

Boiled down to simple terms, IC states that 'we don't understand how this works, so evolution must be false'.

You should have said "we can't imagine how this could have happened naturally, so evolution must be false." It seems to me there's a difference.

 

[Mojo]

I am fairly sure that IC was originally a 19th argument against evolution.

Maybe earlier than that. I thought it was originated by this guy, but there seems to be an allegation that he plagiarised it from an earlier source.

 

[fishbob]

Re: Re: Re: Irreducible complexity is a parasite

You should have said "we can't imagine how this could have happened naturally, so evolution must be false." It seems to me there's a difference.

I don't see the difference, but it is late. Please explain.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Mojo
Maybe earlier than that. I thought it was originated by this guy, but there seems to be an allegation that he plagiarised it from an earlier source.

Thanks. I was only thinking of it as anti-natural selection argument. I should have realize that it was a argument for god creating everything which would have preceded Darwin.

The absurd thing is the idiots like Behe think that they are smarter than everyone before and have new ideas. They are simply resurrecting a old idea that did not pass muster in Darwin's time.

CBL

 

[pupdog]

The classic IC argument is about how a mouse trap requires 5 pieces. With only 4 of them it is useless, so there is no way it could evolve go from 4 to 5. Of course, this ignores the fact that it could have gone from 6 (non-irreducible parts) to 5 irreducible one.

And the classic refutation is the one that shows how a mousetrap can indeed trap mice with fewer parts, as well as how an Ur-mousetrap might have functioned as something else, such as a tie clip.

All of the irreducibly complex examples provided by Michael Behe--mousetrap, flagellum, blood-clotting cascade, have been refuted by providing scientific evidence that pieces could be missing and the system still function (for something).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There is another fascinating way in which ID is a pig on the back of evolution. In order to show that a biological mechanism was designed, Dembski proposed that we could calculate the probabilities of all the ways that mechanism could have come into existence naturalistically. If all the probabilities are below some universal probability bound (he used 10^150), then the object is designated complex, one of the two characteristics it needs to be designed (the other being specified). Ignore the simple fact that he cannot enumerate all possible naturalistic origins of the object.

Well, one obvious way that the object could have come into existence is by evolution. So, Dembski first has to determine how the object might have evolved, then show that the probability of that series of events is below the UPB. In other words, Dembski has to participate as a serious researcher in the very program---evolution---that he denies. Only then can he show that the evolution of the object is impossible.

It's just delicious irony.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

pupdog said:
All of the irreducibly complex examples provided by Michael Behe--mousetrap, flagellum, blood-clotting cascade, have been refuted by providing scientific evidence that pieces could be missing and the system still function (for something).

And while you're pondering irreducible complexity, see if you can find an IDer who will define the term part or piece in the biological context. Is it a single protein or something else?

~~ Paul

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Let me know if this post doesn't make any sense. I am unsure of how to word what I am thinking.

Many Christians see IC as proof of the existance of God. In fact, many say the great organization of the universe in spite of its "randomness" as the BEST sign of God.

If Darwin had never thought of evolution,would IC even exist? After all what is IC but a critque of evolutionary theory? Intelligent design and irreducible complexity are utterly dependent on the theories they are trying to debunk!

How can anyone claim that IC is evidence IN FAVOR of anything? It, at best, could only be seen as evidence AGAINST one school of thought. Right?

I think you're probably right. IC/ID is only definable as the antagonist of evolution.

There was a debate here some time ago on this forum about words which solely having meaning as negations of something else and I think this is a similar situation. Can anyone remember that thread and link to it?

The main trick that the IC/ID protagnoists play is to set up a false dichotomy, as has already been mentioned. IC/ID is contrasted with randomness. No one expects a 747 to spontaneously assemble itself from a pile of parts. Creation of complexity from randomness defies all that we know of the universe and IDers hope to sneak through as the available alternative. But, the alternative is not complete randomness but selection acting on variation.

 

[Robin]

Maybe earlier than that. I thought it was originated by this guy, but there seems to be an allegation that he plagiarised it from an earlier source.

Basically the idea of evidence of God from design predates Paley by quite a long way. It was used by the Medieval Scholastics (for example St Thomas Aquinas) and was refuted by Hume (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion) before Paley proposed it.

Paley is in fact a minor and poorly regarded figure in theology and his current fame is due (I think) to his being used by Dawkins as an easy to refute form of this argument.

(edit)On further investigation the idea seems to go back to ancient Rome and Cicero(/edit)

 

[Soapy Sam]

"I saw a mouse trapped in a biscuit tin once", snarled Pooh, ramming another magazine into his AK47.