If you are going to offer irreducible complexity as evidence against evolution, shouldn't it be experimentally demonstrated? If it hasn't been experimentally demonstrated, can it be considered evidence?
2007-02-02 02:12:58 · 5 answers · asked by mullah robertson 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I think we've seen the irreducible complexity arguments comprehensively demolished a while before now, haven't we? I mean, WE have, but there's a problem that not everyone else has.
Onus is on the proposer (of IC) to prove, of course. And so far every IC component has disclosed its evolutionary pathways. Remember the eye? That used to be the IC stalwart. I reckon a good third grade biology student could explain the evolution of the eye pretty satisfactorily nowadays...
2007-02-02 02:22:52 · answer #1 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you know who is responsible for coining that phrase-Michael Behe- a man who isn't himself a biologist, won't submit his work to any scientific institution or journal or even defend his views on biology in an open debate with professional biologists. For "irreducible complexity" read red herring-it's another fancy sounding phrase to try and give scientific credibility to a system of theological belief.
2007-02-02 10:21:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just because it seems really hard to break it down, doesn't mean it is really that hard. You'd have to submit some kind of evidence showing that it is actually irreducibly complex.
2007-02-02 10:16:38 · answer #3 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Anybody who does have some, hurry and claim the Templeton prize!
And anybody who does prove intelligent design, the Nobel committee wants to speak with you.
2007-02-02 10:16:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
ah... nice try, but refutable. Irreducibility is just a theory to accept that things occur suddenly in large bounds.
2007-02-02 10:15:42 · answer #5 · answered by Invisible_Flags 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋