For Joshua Swamidass/ Peaceful Science: RE Irreducible Complexity

-
Joshua and Peaceful Science seem to have problems understanding the concept of irreducible complexity. First Dr. Behe addresses the type of evolution IC is an obstacle for in an article schooling Judge Jones:

Again, as I made abundantly clear at trial, it isn’t “evolution” but Darwinism — random mutation and natural selection — that ID challenges. Darwinism makes the large, crucial claim that random processes and natural selection can account for the functional complexity of life. Thus the “burden of proof” for Darwinism necessarily is to support its special claim — not simply to show that common descent looks to be true. How can a demand for Darwinism to convincingly support its express claim be “unreasonable”? 

The 19th century ether theory of the propagation of light could not be tested simply by showing that light was a wave; it had to test directly for the ether. Darwinism is not tested by studies showing simply that organisms are related; it has to show evidence for the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection to make complex, functional systems. (page 7)

That is evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Natural selection is non-telic with no goals. The elimination of the less fit, with the less fit being those deficient in some manner for that environment. There aren't any goals with such a process.

Now I know the following is from "No Free Lunch" by Wm. Dembski but is the latest accepted definition, nonetheless.

Irreducible Complexity:

IC-A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. Page 285 

Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number and diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop. Page 287

Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous and diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism and if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit. Page 287

All IC structures are also discrete combinatorial objects. That is a structure made up of several different parts that when assembled properly produce some specific effect. William Dembski discusses DCO's in "No Free Lunch". The issue is as follows:

1- You need the parts. With respect to any bacterial flagellum that would be the required residues in the correct quantity. That is the origins issue.

2- You need to get them all to the right location at the right time. That is the localization issue

3- You need to get them in the proper configuration while avoiding cross reactions with the wrong residues in the group. That is the configuration issue

4- You need command and control of it. That is the communication issue. (Dembski missed this one) 

So, the criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ‘ s Black Box: “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997

You do not refute the concept by showing a 3 part "IC" structure can arise. That says nothing about a 4 part system, for example. Being able to lift 100 lbs doesn't mean you can lift 1000 lbs., or even 110 lbs. But it does mean you can lift 90 lbs.

Also, see- Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions

Remember, IC is OK to have evolved by means of intelligent design.