How NOT to refute Irreducible Complexity
In his article, Irreducible Complexity Demystified, Pete Dunkelberg tries to demonstrate that IC really isn't. However his article falls flat on its face right from the beginning (3rd sentence):
ID does NOT say anything about "God". Nor does acceptance of ID require a belief in "God". But that isn't the issue. Complexity is only part of the equation and "evolution" has several meanings.
It just gets worse:
That is all wrong. First IC does NOT mean that something could not have evolved. The debate is all about the MECHANISM(s) involved-> willy-nilly vs design. Natural selection only works on what exists- what works stays, what doesn't gets culled. However we know that artificial selection can keep what nature would discard.
Also part 2 needs to be clarified- the design inference requires more than just saying it couldn't have "evolved". Specific criterion must be met- the specified complexity criterion.
He then uses Dr Behe's original definition of IC, which is strange because by April 2003 IC had been revised. Revised because we know that some IC structures do have parts that, if removed, do not alter the function.
Pete goes on to say:
Dr Behe responds:
Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions
Next Pete wants us to join in on "mind-games"- IOW he wants us to try to think how alleged IC systems could evolve- However reality doesn't exist in our minds alone. Somewhere along the line the rubber has to meet the road- which it never does in Pete's article.
Pete also brings up diseases as evidence against design! Diseases or alleged poor designs have nothing to do with the concept of ID. Diseases could be caused by the random effects on a once good design.
If IC is so easy to refute one must wonder why no one has done so in a lab. Why hasn't any evolutionist conducted the experiment Dr Behe taked about at Dover? Rambling rhetoric is not the way to refute something scientifically.
Irreducible complexity (also denoted IC) has gained prominence as the evidence for the intelligent design (ID) movement, which argues that life is so complicated that it must be the work of an intelligent designer (aka God) rather than the result of evolution.
ID does NOT say anything about "God". Nor does acceptance of ID require a belief in "God". But that isn't the issue. Complexity is only part of the equation and "evolution" has several meanings.
It just gets worse:
The argument from IC to ID is simply:
1. IC things cannot evolve
2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed
That is all wrong. First IC does NOT mean that something could not have evolved. The debate is all about the MECHANISM(s) involved-> willy-nilly vs design. Natural selection only works on what exists- what works stays, what doesn't gets culled. However we know that artificial selection can keep what nature would discard.
Also part 2 needs to be clarified- the design inference requires more than just saying it couldn't have "evolved". Specific criterion must be met- the specified complexity criterion.
He then uses Dr Behe's original definition of IC, which is strange because by April 2003 IC had been revised. Revised because we know that some IC structures do have parts that, if removed, do not alter the function.
Pete goes on to say:
A precursor to IC lacking a part can have any functions except the specified one, which brings us to 'indirect' evolution.
Dr Behe responds:
Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions
Next Pete wants us to join in on "mind-games"- IOW he wants us to try to think how alleged IC systems could evolve- However reality doesn't exist in our minds alone. Somewhere along the line the rubber has to meet the road- which it never does in Pete's article.
Pete also brings up diseases as evidence against design! Diseases or alleged poor designs have nothing to do with the concept of ID. Diseases could be caused by the random effects on a once good design.
If IC is so easy to refute one must wonder why no one has done so in a lab. Why hasn't any evolutionist conducted the experiment Dr Behe taked about at Dover? Rambling rhetoric is not the way to refute something scientifically.
posted by Joe G @ 7:59 AM
3 Comments:
At 4:53 PM,
Anonymous said…
Thanks for providing a response! Now i can just refer people to here :D
At 5:47 PM,
Joe G said…
I had planned a more thorough rebuttal but that just wasn't necessary.
What is strange to me is that "designed to evolve" is getting weird reaxtions from the anti-ID crowd- as if they had just heard of such a thing recently- like when I posted it over on PT.
But that is what happens when you don't know what it is you are arguing against.
At 6:43 PM,
Anonymous said…
I think you refuted this article rather nicely. The "irreducible complexity demystified" is so pitiful that a person like me can notice the mistakes instantly. Though, i've seen a lot of people refer to Matzke's article on the evolution of the flagellum. For a semi-technical person like me, it's difficult to comprehend but i neither have the experience or knowledge to refute it. Well, perhaps i could point out a few errors.
Wouldn't that be a great article to refute or is it just a time-waster? Personally, it doesn't really worry me but it gets tiring after seeing the same link being brought up over and over.
Post a Comment
<< Home