Did you know that "irreducible complexity" works against god?

Question

For those of you that don't know, irreducible complexity states that something as complex and fine tuned as a body organ (like an eye) can't be reduced in complexity (made simpler) or else it would be rendered useless (like removing a cog from a clock mechanism).
This of course is an argument against evolution, since evolutions states that living things gradually become more complex over time. Darwin however, dismissed this argument with a simple explanation. And you can easily observe a human becoming more complex inside the womb as he starts out from a single cell, simple -->complex.
But that's beside the point.
Since this argument says that simple things can't give way to more complex things, it implies that god would have to be more complex that the universe, meaning something of even greater complexity would have to create him, and so on.

And please don't say "God existed forever", if that's your justification, than I can just as well say that matter existed forever and you wouldn't be able to prove it otherwise; for if you said, "nothing can exist forever" I could say the same about your god and your supposed eternal life in heaven.

Cuchlain- you know what I mean by simple, don't get technical.

teran_realtor- in other words, you dismiss my argument by simply stating that god is above rational reasoning simply because he is god.
I agree, non-existent things are immune to reason.

Answer 1

There is no scientific principle that states 'complexity can only come from even greater complexity'. Observations indicate exactly the opposite.

Creationists attempt to equate complexity with disorder to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics, yet any idiot can tell that complexity is not the same thing as usable energy (which is what the 2nd law is all about).


...several posters above seem to think you are arguing in FAVOR of irreducible complexity. I don't know how they could have thought that.

Answer 2

Actually, irreducible complexity refers to traits that are dependent on one another to function properly and are otherwise useless on their own. The eye is a good example. Here's another one: the woodpecker. I'm sure everyone's heard the familiar rat-a-tat-tat sound of a woodpecker searching for bugs in the trunk of a tree. Now, exactly, how would the woodpecker evolve to do that? It would need 1) a dietary need for the bugs that live in the tree 2) a beak strong enough to drill through the tree, yet one that won't break its skull 3) a skull strong enough to withstand the force from the pounding 4) protection for its brain so the brain doesn't get turned into goo 5) somewhere to put its tongue, cause it needs a long tongue to reach the bugs. What happens if the woodpecker were to evolve with only one of these traits? Pick one. What benefit is there to any of these traits unless all are present in the organism? None. Our poor woodpecker friend would die, likely horribly, without passing any of his traits along. And lets also ask this: if by some mathematical miracle all these traits evolved simultaneously in the first woodpecker, with what does it mate? That's irreducible complexity. It's also known as compound traits. Do you know what Darwin said referring to these? That these compound traits were "difficulties with the theory" because according to Darwin, these traits would develop slowly, one step at a time. He most certainly did not dismiss it with a wave of his hand.

Is God more complex than the universe He created? You bet. Can we ever completely understand Him? Nope...we are finite beings with finite minds and He is infinite. However, He told us all we need to know, by providing to us His revealed will through the truth of His Word.

Edit: Blue
The 2nd argument is more correctly stated:
1) Everything which has a beginning has a cause
2) The universe has a beginning
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

We know because of Einstein, that time is linked to matter and space. Therefore, time also had a beginning. God, who is the creator of the universe, and thus created time, is outside time and therefore does not have a beginning nor a cause.

Answer 3

There are two ways I've seen the argument spun:

1)
Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause*.
Premise 2: The universe exists.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
*everything except God.
This is a great example of a logical fallacy known as "special pleading" as one thing (God) is made exempt from the rules applied to everything else, and no justification is given for this exemption.

2)
Premise 1: Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist, but God did not (as he has always existed).
Conclusion: The universe had a cause, but God did not.
This is an example of a fallacy known as "begging the question", as the truth of the conclusion is simply assumed in the premises.

Mention these the next time it crops up (which will happen in this forum in no more than 10 minutes) and see how quickly the other person reverts to an appeal to belief, authority, emotion, popularity, or even an ad hominem attack.

Answer 4

"Irreducible complexity" makes no sense to me. Things happen in nature all the time that take simple things and turn them into complex ones. Hydrogen is fusing into Helium inside our sun as we speak, the energy given off by this reaction is what keeps us warm and alive here on Earth. Helium is a more complex atom then Hydrogen. So the elements in the sun are getting more complex with time. Many other examples exist.

Answer 5

That's an interesting argument, but the argument between evolution-believers and Genesis-believers is not an intellectual, logical argument. Believing Genesis word-for-word is not a logical position, and if one does believe it, no amount of logic is going to dissuade him. Religious beliefs do not respond to logic. Scientific observation and logic on one hand, and religious doctrine on the other, don't meet in the middle.

In other words, the 'irreducible complexity' argument is a good argument not because its logic is inescapable but because it supports the proper conclusion.

Answer 6

Take a good, close look at a flagellum motor. The "irreducible complexity" argument goes out the window.

Answer 7

I love the comment that says something about not being able to use the bible is like saying don't use science text books. What a farce that one is, I mean comparing actual tangible provable evidence verses abstract metaphysical yea real logical. Anywho, are we talking about random flying parts coming together, or are we talking about how the eyeball has evolved and has been proven that it has evolved by way of undersea life with eyeballs missing key parts. (Yes somehow God overlook undersea fishes giving them eyeballs that are missing a Key part) And yes doesn't that prove that missing one key part makes the eye not work, and that it evolved in order to work.

Answer 8

Except science has proven that matter didn't exist for ever. It's called the Big Bang where everything was in the form of light. "Let there be light" God transends time and is not governed by cause and effect so he needs no creator.

Your arguments are so flawed that I've grown bored with them so I'll stop here.

Answer 9

According to modern biology, there is no such thing as a "simple" cell

It does not apply if God is not natural (part of the universe)

Answer 10

Matter is subject to physical laws. God is not. That's the difference, and why it is correct to say that God has always been. He introduced Himself as "I AM". Not "I WAS AND WILL BE". It's because God is not constrained by time or space. Those are two things He made up for us to have perspective. But He is everywhere, at all times, at the same time.