how can i, as an evolutionist, counter the concept of irreducible complexity?

Answer 1

Read some books by Richard Dawkins. He discusses this in The Selfish Gene. Very good book.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

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?

Answer 7

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.

Answer 8

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.

Answer 9

You don't have to. Explain where you see the contradiction.

Answer 10

Go to talk origins.org

see below...