Question:
how can i, as an evolutionist, counter the concept of irreducible complexity?
crazypo_po
2006-08-16 17:44:18 UTC
how can i, as an evolutionist, counter the concept of irreducible complexity?
Eleven answers:
coreyhaines
2006-08-16 17:50:10 UTC
Read some books by Richard Dawkins. He discusses this in The Selfish Gene. Very good book.
2006-08-17 16:08:29 UTC
One way is to point out that the IDer's two favorite

examples of "irreducible" complexity have already

been shown not to be irreducible. These are the

clotting of blood and the structure of the eye. The

blood clotting one has been shown false by the

elimination of two of the proteins involved, leaving

clotting still occurring normally. The eye example is falsified by the existence of many kinds of eyes

in different degrees of development, many of

them missing some of the parts that are supposedly necessary. For that matter, one's ability to see after a cataract operation falsifies

this example, also.



Another point is that if irreducible complexity really

exists at all, which is doubtful, it is an example of

BAD design. Any system that fails if just one

small part is removed or breaks is not well made.

Good design provides backups and failsafes so

that function is retained is some minor component

goes bad.
leikevy
2006-08-17 03:00:05 UTC
Good question: And Irreducible Complexity brings up good scientific points that can actually be tested in science. Some scientists have started to counter these points through further research into these catagories. Of course, read the books meantioned but here is a video on youtube.com that you can see for a few key points:



http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&search=ken%20miller



its somewhere in the middle of the video but the entire thing is interesting.



Response to Justathought: Irreducible complexity implies design and not evolution, of course there is a problem when the two come together.



Response to Slaughterenos: how is it a question from ignorance.



response to others; To just regard Irreducible complexity supporters as just stupid is ignorant itself. IF there is proof that it is false, let it be shown. If IC cannot be proven false, the science community has to respond to it.
Vincent G
2006-08-17 01:01:58 UTC
You cannot really. There are no conclusive evidence of anything that really qualifies as irreducible complexity. Those who hold that position nonetheless do not know what they are talking about, and arguing with them is futile as they are past the point of no return.



The only exception to this is if you are a teacher trying to salvage kids from their brainwashing. Assuming they are old enough to grasp the pseudo science concept of irreducible complexity, have them start by reading the wikipedia page on the topic.
dukefenton
2006-08-18 05:25:40 UTC
The concept is itself a false premise. Intelligent design of the type that can be *proven* is generally marked by *simplicity* relative to the natural world. Even the metaphorical watch, supposedly so 'complicated' that it must have been designed, is elegant in its simplicity compared to, say, a bacterium.



A bird nest is obviously constructed precisely *because* it has been made into a simple shape instead of the complex pattern of randomly scattered sticks. When trees grow in straight rows, you know there is an orchard; where no human hand has been, they are random. Watercourses with straight shores and even width are man made; those with uneven width and ragged edges are natural. Rivers meander; roads are straight. And so on.



The so-called 'Watchmaker Hypothesis' is a fallacy which disproves itself. The relative simplicity, obvious order, and obvious purpose of the watch are in *contrast* to the natural world. We know this because we can make watches. Find me a factory that can make (not grow) a tree from scratch.
Cybeq
2006-08-17 00:57:34 UTC
Even though I don't believe in evolution I think your best best bet in countering irreducible complexity would be to show the organism simulating software called Avida. The thing that I find ironic about it though is that in an attempt to prove life was a random accident they sure put a lot of intelligence into their experiments. "Hey, look! If I design this incredibly complex computer program I can show that life happened with no intelligent input completely by accident!"



P.S. How many people who answered actually know what irreducible complexity means?
Lorelei
2006-08-20 21:53:17 UTC
If there were any such thing, it would support creationism. But, things (structures) can be evolved to meet one need and then be turned to other uses;that's happened so many times in evolution it's almost a truism. Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene is full of good ideas, as are many of Stephen J Gould's. Both authors use a conversational style so they aren't hard to read.
2006-08-17 00:56:12 UTC
The best way is to look at the person who raises the "concept" like they are the stupidest person on earth, and then say that concept is as ridiculous as believing in God. Then turn and walk away.
JustaThought
2006-08-17 00:50:44 UTC
You don't have to. Explain where you see the contradiction.
2006-08-17 00:51:37 UTC
Go to talk origins.org



see below...
2006-08-17 01:00:15 UTC
U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution



Ker Than

LiveScience Staff Writer

LiveScience.comThu Aug 10, 5:45 PM ET



A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.



Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.



“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.



The researchers combined data from public surveys on evolution collected from 32 European countries, the United States and Japan between 1985 and 2005. Adults in each country were asked whether they thought the statement “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” was true, false, or if they were unsure.



The study found that over the past 20 years:

The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent. The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however. And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.



Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower, with about 25 percent of the population accepting evolution and 75 percent rejecting it. In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France, 80 percent or more of adults accepted evolution; in Japan, 78 percent of adults did.



The findings are detailed in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science.



Religion belief and evolution



The researchers also compared 10 independent variables­including religious belief, political ideology and understanding of concepts from genetics, or “genetic literacy”­between adults in America and nine European countries to determine whether these factors could predict attitudes toward evolution.



The analysis found that Americans with fundamentalist religious beliefs­defined as belief in substantial divine control and frequent prayer­were more likely to reject evolution than Europeans with similar beliefs. The researchers attribute the discrepancy to differences in how American Christian fundamentalist and other forms of Christianity interpret the Bible.



While American fundamentalists tend to interpret the Bible literally and to view Genesis as a true and accurate account of creation, mainstream Protestants in both the United States and Europe instead treat Genesis as metaphorical, the researchers say.



“Whether it’s the Bible or the Koran, there are some people who think it’s everything you need to know,” Miller said. “Other people say these are very interesting metaphorical stories in that they give us guidance, but they’re not science books.”



This latter view is also shared by the Catholic Church.



Politics and the Flat Earth



Politics is also contributing to America's widespread confusion about evolution, the researchers say. Major political parties in the United States are more willing to make opposition to evolution a prominent part of their campaigns to garner conservative votes­something that does not happen in Europe or Japan.



Miller says that it makes about as much sense for politicians to oppose evolution in their campaigns as it is for them to advocate that the Earth is flat and promise to pass legislation saying so if elected to office.



"You can pass any law you want but it won't change the shape of the Earth," Miller told LiveScience.



Paul Meyers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the study, says that what politicians should be doing is saying, 'We ought to defer these questions to qualified authorities and we should have committees of scientists and engineers who we will approach for the right answers."



The researchers also single out the poor grasp of biological concepts, especially genetics, by American adults as an important contributor to the country's low confidence in evolution.



“The more you understand about genetics, the more you understand about the unity of life and the relationship humans have to other forms of life,” Miller said.



The current study also analyzed the results from a 10-country survey in which adults were tested with 10 true or false statements about basic concepts from genetics. One of the statements was "All plants and animals have DNA." Americans had a median score of 4. (The correct answer is "yes.")



Science alone is not enough



But the problem is more than one of education­it goes deeper, and is a function of our country's culture and history, said study co-author Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in California.



“The rejection of evolution is not something that will be solved by throwing science at it,” Scott said in a telephone interview.



Myers expressed a similar sentiment. About the recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania which ruled against intelligent design, Myers said "it was a great victory for our side and it’s done a lot to help ensure that we keep religion out of the classroom for a while longer, but it doesn’t address the root causes. The creationists are still creationists­they're not going to change because of a court decision."



Scott says one thing that will help is to have Catholics and mainstream Protestants speak up about their theologies' acceptance of evolution.



"There needs to be more addressing of creationism from these more moderate theological perspectives," Scott said. “The professional clergy and theologians whom I know tend to be very reluctant to engage in that type of ‘my theology versus your theology’ discussion, but it matters because it’s having a negative effect on American scientific literacy."



The latest packaging of creationism is intelligent design, or ID, a conjecture which claims that certain features of the natural world are so complex that they could only be the work of a Supreme Being. ID proponents say they do not deny that evolution is true, only that scientists should not rule out the possibility of supernatural intervention.



But scientists do not share doubts over evolution. They argue it is one of the most well tested theories around, supported by countless tests done in many different scientific fields. Scott says promoting uncertainty about evolution is just as bad as denying it outright and that ID and traditional creationism both spread the same message.



“Both are saying that evolution is bad science, that evolution is weak and inadequate science, and that it can’t do the job so therefore God did it,” she said.



Another view



Bruce Chapman, the president of the Discovery Institute, the primary backer of ID, has a different view of the study.



"A better explanation for the high percentage of doubters of Darwinism in America may be that this country's citizens are famously independent and are not given to being rolled by an ideological elite in any field," Chapman said. "In particular, the growing doubts about Darwinism undoubtedly reflect growing doubts among scientists about Darwinian theory. Over 640 have now signed a public dissent and the number keeps growing."



Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education in California points out, however, that most of the scientists Chapman refers to do not do research in the field of evolution.



"If you look at the list, you can't find anybody who's really a significant contributor to the field or anyone who's done recognizable work on evolution," Matzke said.



Scott says the news is not all bad. The number of American adults unsure about the validity of evolution has increased in recent years, from 7 to 21 percent, but growth in this demographic comes at the expense of the other two groups. The percentage of Americans accepting evolution has declined, but so has the percentage of those who overtly reject it.



"I was very surprised to see that. To me that means the glass is half full,” Scott said. “That 21 percent we can educate."


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...