How do people explain...?

Question

The appearance of structures that are irreducibly complex. For example, a cell that cannot perpetuate itself unless it is a complete entity. Its individual parts are not viable.

Or maybe a structure like the inner ear, where thousands of extremely delicate structures have to work in harmony in order for anything to work... half an ear would do no good.

Maybe DNA or something of that sort... take away one part and it's nothing.

Does not irreducible complexity point to the involvement of some intelligence at "the beginning"? What or who that intelligence is would certainly be up for debate but it seems a logical impossibility to believe that no intelligence was involved.

So, how do you explain it if you assume no intelligence along the way?

Man! I cannot believe the stuff I'm reading... fossils prove micro evolution!!! what do they teach in schools these days! Good grief!

Aaaaahhhh... time. The "god" of the evolutionist. Can't prove it... but since we can't believe in God it must be so.

Answer 1

You should read Richard Dawkin's chapter about 'irreducilbe complexity' in his book "The God Delusion". It's a bit long to get into on this forum.

Answer 2

When I was a creationist, this one convinced me too. How wrong the evolutionists were...

There's a very good explanation about that regarding the development of the eye. It would work with your example of an ear too. In fact, lets go there!

A creature that could sense, by vibration, that predators were near, would have a slight evolutionary advantage over ones that don't (think earthworm). Then, ones that can tell the pitches and intensitiy of soundwaves, would have an even greater evolutionary advantage (think now about Leopard Geckos, with their very primitve ear). Soon, creatures that can distinguish more specific sounds, can use this to even greater evolutionary advantage...they can use it for mating calls, eventually for more complex communication.

All our "ears" aren't that complex. Some are just a cluster of cells that can feel virbrations. If I've been too brief, email me and I can send you a link to a longer treatment about "the eye"

Answer 3

A little early for that first drink, isn't it?

Nature abhors a vacuum. Look at the komodo dragons that gave birth at the Chester Zoo in London. The female developed viable eggs without benefit of a male.

Now some sharks may also be doing it. (more testing going on).

So how do you explain that? Sorry, but using your logic, then intelligently, males are becoming less and less necessary for the survival of certain species. Brings the old joke about rough draft before the final copy to mind.

Answer 4

None of your examples have been shown to be irreducibly complex.

In fact nothing has been shown to be irreducibly complex. Michael Behe tried to do this at the Dover PA ID trial, and failed miserably.

There is no science behind ID. Behe admitted, under oath, that if ID was classed as a science then astrology and palm reading would be sciences too.

Please do some research before claiming such rubbish.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Answer 5

When you find a structure that is, in fact, irreducibly complex, you'll have proven a divine being.

Ever since Michael Behe came up with the concept of irreducible complexity, every structure he has proposed as irreducibly complex has been disproven as such, and shown to be reducibly complex.

Try harder.

Answer 6

Ahh, A science vs. creation question. These type of questions spark endless debate. I am afraid your question may never get answered with absolute viable facts in either direction. It all depends on who ends up answering your question, and what theory they support. I could go on and on about the intricate mysteries of the universe, but I'll spare you that agony because it really will not bring you any closer to a concrete answer to your question. Even advanced scientific theory hasn't proven without a doubt that there is absolutely no creator. Mankind is still trying to find answers to the ever enigmatic meaning of life. :-)

Answer 7

The notion of irreducible complexity is flawed. Taking away one component of a larger whole does not reflect the manner in which that whole came to be.

The human ear wasn't just assembled from the pieces that compose it, it's pieces evolved over time into their current state.

If you take away one of the components, of course it will stop working properly, but what does that have to do with anything?

Answer 8

I believe that the vast complexity of the universe shows that God is vast and complex more than we can ever hope to understand. To reduce God and life to a simple version like presented in the creation story is like reducing calculus to a simple 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Answer 9

DNA or any other cell structure is so intricately designed that nothing could ever have evolved. Everything had to be there at the same time or you get dead animals or humans.
It says in the Bible that we are 'fearfully and wonderfully made.' How true that is, only God could have done it. How could have we evolved? everything came out of nothingness.
I believe that God is behind everything.

Answer 10

Your question would have more weight if it were not for the sequence of fossils showing these things in development, from the earliest single celled organisms to the complex species today, including transition species showing how the ear changed over time.

Conversely there are many things to dispute intelligent design, such as our appendix or poor design for upright walking.