Irreducible complexity indicates design

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 External Links 6 References 7 Related claims 8 Acknowledgments

Claim

Irreducible complexity (IC) in organisms indicates they were designed.

Source

• Behe, Michael, 1996. Darwin's Black Box, The Free Press, New York.

Responses

1. Behe's argument assumes that evolution can only add new parts onto an existing system; if that were true, it would indeed be impossible for evolution to produce an "irreducibly complex" (IC) system. In reality, evolution can remove or even modify existing parts of a system. Given that the defining characteristic of IC systems is that none of the system's parts can be removed without destroying the system's functionality, it follows that a non-IC system is one in which at least one of the parts can be removed without destroying the system's functionality. Since evolution can produce non-IC systems, one obvious route to producing an IC system would be: (a) Evolution produces a non-IC system. (b) Various non-essential parts of the non-IC system are lost or changed through natural selection and/or mutation. (c) Repeat step "b" until no more of the system's parts can be lost without destroying the system's functionality, making it "irreducibly complex".
2. It is not clear that any irreducibly complex (IC) systems actually exist. Behe uses a "mouse trap" as an IC system, but it has been shown to be reducibly complex [1]. In addition, Behe's fellow ID-advocate, William A. Dembski, has proposed a different definition of IC, under which a system is IC only if no simpler system whatsoever is capable of performing the function in question. By Behe's original definition, a three-legged stool is IC, because if any of its four parts (the three legs, and the seat) are removed, the stool cannot do its job; by Dembski's definition, a three-legged stool is not IC, because a simpler system – a solid block of wood – can do the stool's job. Because Dembski's definition of "irreducible complexity" requires knowledge of all alternative systems which perform a given function, determining whether or not a given system is Dembski-IC becomes increasingly problematic as one attempts to apply it to systems of increasing levels of complexity.
3. By Behe's definition, an IC system is one that requires every single one of its components to be present and intact in order for it to function; therefore, an IC system is one for which every single one of its components is a critical failure point. A designed system which consists wholly and entirely of critical failure points does not suggest a very intelligent designer.
4. For the sake of courtesy, the claim can be assumed to be true, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, or indeed any evidence that such a thing as "irreducible complexity" is even conceptually sound. If it did exist, perhaps it would indicate design. The world may never know!
5. add more response

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Argument from Ignorance (I don't understand it, it can't have happened)
• Argument from Design (This looks designed to me, it must be designed)

External Links

• Mark Isaak's page for this claim [2]
• CreationWiki's comments [3]

References

1. Steele, Diana, 2000 (18 Sep.). Scientists search for secrets of robust systems. Dallas Morning News, Science section, [4]

Related claims

• Design is detectable
• Complexity indicates design
• Complex specified information indicates design
• Genetic algorithms require a designer to specify desired outcome
• Purpose indicates design
• Functional integration indicates design
• Similarities in DNA and anatomy are due to common design
• SETI researchers expect they can detect design
• Some systems are irreducibly complex
• Bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex
• Blood clotting is irreducibly complex
• Protein transport within a cell is irreducibly complex
• Immune system is irreducibly complex
• Metabolic pathway for AMP synthesis is too complex to have evolved

Acknowledgments