TRUE or FALSE: "Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design"?

Question

Wikipedia article on irreducible complexity for those who don't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Secret Agent Man, Intelligent Design IS a religious concept. It's not science. It's appropriate to ask about one of it's leading arguments, "irreducible complexity", in this section.

Get a Grip, that's nice... but it doesn't answer my question.

Perhaps you missed my request for all respondents to throw out a "true" or "false" opinion about the given statement.

Do you think it's TRUE that irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution and not proof of design, or do you think it's FALSE that irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution and not proof of design?

Take your user name's advice and just throw out one or the other.

No, Get a Grip, I *did* read the rest of the article. It seems you missed this part:

The examples offered to support the irreducible complexity argument have generally been found to fail to meet the definition and intermediate precursor states have been identified for several structures purported to exhibit irreducible complexity. For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System. This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways. Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.

Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance. Irreducible complexity is generally dismissed by the scientific community; it is often referred to as pseudoscience.

And "seriously", it must be nice to get away with telling everyone to "get a grip". That way, you come across seeming much more level-headed than all those frenzied characters out there who ought to be taking your sage advice. That, or everyone here really ISN'T as mature and calm as lil' ol' you.

Oh wait... that's your cue! Go ahead and roll out your catch phrase, we know I deserve it!

Answer 1

that depends on the historical context. when paley articulated the idea, it was considered proof of design. of course, that was before evolution (specifically natural selection) had been proposed. if one agrees with the idea that natural causes should be sought for natural phenomena (something that many theists have apparently agreed with for many centuries), then it can no longer be said that IC is a positive argument.

Answer 2

genuinely, irreducible complexity refers to characteristics that are based on one yet another to function appropriate and are in any different case ineffective on their own. the attention is a superb occasion. right this is yet another one: the woodpecker. i'm beneficial rather everyone's heard the regular rat-a-tat-tat sound of a woodpecker searching for bugs interior the trunk of a tree. Now, precisely, how could the woodpecker evolve to try this? it could wish a million) a nutritional want for the bugs that stay interior the tree 2) a beak good adequate to drill interior the process the tree, yet one that may not injury its cranium 3) a cranium good adequate to stand up to the rigidity from the pounding 4) protection for its thoughts so the thoughts does not get grew to become into goo 5) someplace to place its tongue, reason it desires an prolonged tongue to attain the bugs. What occurs if the woodpecker have been to conform with in hassle-free terms one among those characteristics? p.c.. one. What earnings is there to any of those characteristics till all are recent interior the organism? None. Our undesirable woodpecker pal could die, possibly horribly, without passing any of his characteristics alongside. And shall we additionally ask this: if by employing some mathematical miracle those style of characteristics more advantageous concurrently interior the 1st woodpecker, with what does it mate? it is irreducible complexity. it is likewise in many circumstances used as compound characteristics. do you recognize what Darwin pronounced touching on those? That those compound characteristics have been "problems with the theory" through fact in accordance to Darwin, those characteristics could improve slowly, one step at a time. He maximum actual did no longer brush aside it with a wave of his hand. Is God extra complicated than the universe He created? You guess. do we ever thoroughly comprehend Him? Nope...we are finite beings with finite minds and he's limitless. besides the shown fact that, He advised us all we ought to comprehend, by employing offering to us His revealed will interior the process the reality of His be conscious. Edit: Blue The 2d argument is extra properly reported: a million) each and every thing which has a beginning up has a reason 2) The universe has a beginning up 3) for this reason, the universe has a reason all of us comprehend through fact of Einstein, that factor is linked to count and area. for this reason, time additionally had a beginning up. God, who's the writer of the universe, and for that reason created time, is exterior time and for this reason does no longer have a beginning up nor a reason.

Answer 3

It depends on whether you accept the design/evolution disjunction as enumerating all possibilities. (I felt like using big words for this one)

Personally, I think it's "proof" of design (or at least an argument in favor of it). However, I think the argument doesn't hold up (it uses flawed inductive reasoning) and therefore it doesn't really matter.

Answer 4

I don't believe in absolute arguments, so I would hesitate to apply the label of negative argument of Evolution to it; it is my belief that Science postulates on theory towards establishing fact, but there is no theory that will not eventually be either credited or discredited by fact. In short, I consider irreducible complexity itself to be suspect, as theorem itself develops.

Science itself is, you see, subject to Evolution.

Answer 5

A better argument is that natural selection has never resulted in greater complexity.
Not one example of observed evolution has shown increased complexity.

Answer 6

The more we learn the more we find that for organisms to evolve based on a single change is inexplicably complex.
Series of changes in concurrence have a better rate of change and survival.
This would take more "programming" and less chance.

Get A Grip

You didn't ask a question, you opinionated a double negative.
I did give a concise perspective.

Answer 7

It was already disproved years ago. Creationists need to think of some new "arguments."

Answer 8

true but i think you are way over many heads with this one--keep trying and smiling-enjoy the night

Answer 9

Why don't you ask this in the right category. That would be under science,not religion and spirituality.

Answer 10

The answer is.... Maybe.