Talk:Irreducible complexity

almost a standard bearer for Creationists in their attempt to disprove natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.

It's not about Creationists vs. evolutionists, but intelligent design vs. evolutionists. "Can't tell the players without a scorecard."
No one is trying to disprove natural selection -- where did you get that?

--User:Ed Poor

Perhaps a poor choice of wording, but the whole phrase includes "as a mechanism for evolution". Creationists are a subset of intelligent design and most creationists I talk to use this particular species as an example of irreducible complexity. If others believe that I have introduced a fallacy or non-NPOV into the article, I shall remove that phrase. However, do a search on "Bombardier Beetle" on the web before making the juedgement. --rgamble

Creationism and intelligent design (ID) are allies against evolutionism. ID insists that it's not creationism, and there are some legal aspects to this distinction at [1] (http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm#5). What I'm trying to contribute to evolution debate is information that points out the weaknesses in the pro-evolution argument. I am not a Creationist. I consider Creationists too anti-scientific for my taste. --User:Ed Poor

Ed, I will remove the reference to Creationists. However, I believe the rest of the statement stands on its own. The phrase does not imply that ID or Creationists are attempting to disprove Natural Selection, but rather Natural Selection as a _mechanism_ for Evolution. ie, since irreducible complexity and Natural Selection seem to have irreconcilable differences, Evolution can not always occur through Natural Selection. This seems to me, to be the basis of the argument. More simply put, the argument seems to be, Evolution relies on Natural Selection. To work, Evolution has to get around the problem of irreducible complexity. Natural Selection, while a true part of nature, does not get around the problem of irreducible complexity. Therefore, evolution can not occur. If that sounds correct to you, then the phrase as I put it, sums up the problem rather than introducing a fallacy. --rgamble

What you wrote in the above paragraph should go into the article, which would put irreducible complexity into the context of the evolution debate. Keep up the good work. User:Ed Poor

Minor note: Many books on irreducible complexity pull the this beatle up, since the original book on irreducible complexity used it as its prime example, but the bombardier beatle does not explode as stated, and never has. In fact, the new edition of his work includes a disclaimer. As talkorigins, cited elsewhere, says quite eloquently, this particular creature is not an example of irreducible complexity, and its accompanying entry needs to be edited to suit.

This is not to say irreducible complexity is or is not so, merely that the bombardier beatle cannot be used in an argument for it. (/minor note)

Hmmm, given I myself am an evolutionist... ;) Then again, to show alternatives to an argument, the argument must be understood so I'll attempt to work it into the article on my next break. Thanks for the exchange. --Rgamble

I would change the bullet item "Assume: Evolution's sole mechanism is natural selection (this is an assumption by some, but not all evolutionists)" to "Assume: Evolution's sole mechanism for adaptation is natural selection." The only real area where Behe is (almost, kinda but not really) making a claim is regarding features which have an apparent function. (Of course, he is ignoring, among other things, the fact that structures can be change function over time, IMO -- witness the evolution of the mammalian inner ear.)--Craig Pennington

Just to chime in on this. This is quite interesting, speaking (typing) as someone not having read any details on the idea behind intelligent design. Its not an entirely invalid question, obviouly to ask about how a small mutation, which in itself serves no function yet, though somehow provides for a greater likelihood of survival. It begs the question of mutations - do they develop as in the quantum evolution idea, as i understand it, not just in small twists, but in huge leaps: Perhaps somehow, borrowing genetic code from elsewhere. wow. Extremely interesting speculation. --Sv

i was just talking to the "evolutionists" and i got some good links from "them". one was http://talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#irred, which makes a call for disambiguation. (another link pointed out that the classic description of how the bombadier beetle works is quite inaccurate and it would suck to perpetuate that here -- for example, its questionable that the beetle would blow up the link was: http://www.talkorigins.org . Specifically, here is a link devoted to explaining precisely the argument that is oft-repeated by creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html ) anyway, disambiguation also needs to differentiate between the inaccurate use of the term when simply referring to great complexity and also the difference between the the scale of organs and chemistry. at least, that's what i think. :)

those who argue for intelligent design in their attempt to disprove natural selection as a potential mechanism for evolution.

What does the above phrase mean? Is there anyone who says that natural selection causes evolution? I thought evolutionists believed (a) that random mutations caused evolution, and (b) that natural selection culls out the unsuccessful products of this process leaving only the competitively successful new species.

Maybe I don't understand evolution well enough to write about it, much less to write about its critics... --Uncle Ed 17:40, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RK, your last edit added nothing to this except to make it POV. Though most sceintists don't agree with Behe's conclusions, he is certainly not 'entirely rejected'. For example, you changed 'contraindicates' to 'refutes', which implies that the question is decided, when it is not. I personally find the previous edit more neutral, and I'd suggest reverting it. Comments anyone? DJ Clayworth 13:46, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is not POV to point out that mainstream scientists reject Christian (and yes, even Jewish) creationism, even in the guise of so-called "Intelligent design". RK 21:40, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 About language, specifically "mainstream scientists".

1.1 External links

2 evolution of flagella

3 Biogenesis?

4 bias in examples

5 Opposition to links to ID

6 Gradual Replacement

7 irreducible complexity requires irreducible complexity

8 NPOV dispute

9 seems to be missing some fields

10 Editorializing from the article

11 Justification?

About language, specifically "mainstream scientists".

While I do not endorse the validity of this particular, or any general approach to the refutation of evolution, using charged terms like "mainstream scientists", doesn't quite hit the mark NPOV-wise in an article like this. The term might be nearly neutral in a less controversial article, but here is like sprinkling "true christians" in an article about some small sectarian movement.-- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:06, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Something like "Behe's views are not accepted by a majority of scientists" would probably be accurate and fair. DJ Clayworth 15:45, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The majority of scientists describe these views as out of the scientific mainstream. In any case, most ID proponents don't seriously propose that intelligent aliens created life on Earth, because then we have to ask "how did these aliens come into existence?" Almost all ID proponents in the USA use ID as a tactical euphemism for saying that God made man, just like the Bible says. However, people jump and hollar when you bring up God, so they just "Some intelligent designer" instead. RK 20:44, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but the POV of the majority of scientists should not dictate the terminology of this article. A majority POV is a POV nonetheless. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 21:10, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

I believe, from reading his essays, that Behe is fully aware that his arguments challenge what he calls "orthodox" beliefs on evolution. However, Behe does not believe that mainstream scientists have refuted his theory. Martin 21:30, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Unless he had recently changed his mind, he still believes that it is necessary to believe that God or some other unnamed "intelligent designer" created life. RK 21:40, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

He believes that it is most plausible to believe that an intelligent designer assisted in the evolution of life. Martin 22:03, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The problem remains: if a beetle, let alone a human, is too complex to evolve, where did the designer (God or other) come from?Vicki Rosenzweig 21:50, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A problem which should be addressed at first cause (or first mover?), if it isn't already. Martin 21:59, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this point at Summa Theologica, which requires further work. Martin 13:50, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

External links

If we're going to cite non-peer-reviewed stuff and Behe's Web page, shouldn't there be links to the opposition? I'd like to add something from talkorigins.org. Vicki Rosenzweig 21:50, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm just citing my sources :) Adding other useful links is fine - but please stick to stuff that discuss irreducible complexity specifically, rather than stuff on intelligent design in general. Martin 21:59, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Rewrite is much better. DJ Clayworth 13:20, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks DJ :)

I think the next section I want to add is one on Falsifiability and experimental evidence. On the one hand, some advocates have suggested that irreducible complexity is not falsifiable. Others have pointed to experimental evidence which they believe refutes it. Additionally, Behe points to experiments which he believes are evidence for his hypothesis. I think a section that dealt with these issues together would be quite interesting to students of the philosophy of science. Martin 13:47, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

done. Martin

evolution of flagella

This example is disputed by other biologists who observe that there are flagella which are simpler in form than the type Behe cites yet which function perfectly well despite "missing parts".

Hard to say without specifics, but this seems like explaining the evolution of the pig by saying that the flower is simpler. To refute Behe you don't need systems which are merely simpler, you need precursors that are simpler and possible precursors.

That is a bad analogy. Look at the protein motor complex that makes up a flagella; a more accurate analogy is that one can explain the modern form of a complicated mechanical watch by studying the form of a simpler mechanical watch. Behe wants an analogy to be something like "a flower doesn't explain a pig", but it isn't. RK 01:35, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There are also even simpler bacteria that only have components of Behe's flagellum but whose components perform a myriad of functions apart from propulsion. The key is that the component parts of the complex flagellum can perform many roles in component form.

General concept is described above under Opposition to irreducible complexity, so we don't need to duplicate unless we have a specific example we can use to illustrate that general concept.

There are many specific examples, discussed in the Talk.Origins FAQ. RK 01:35, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum except that it functions as a needle to inject toxins into host cells.

The evolution of flagella article, written by someone not sympathetic to Behe, points out that such examples should have evolved after the bacterial flagellum, and is therefore highly likely to be a successor, rather than a precursor. I moved the example to Evolution of flagella. Martin 22:39, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Biogenesis?

One facet of ID perhaps poorly represented on this page is the biogenesis hurdle. In order for evolution to occur, self-replicating complex molecules must first come into existence. If we were to say that some hidden part of the universe has human-like thought-like abilities, we would have one possible method for the origin of these mechanisms.

The main thesis of reductionistic biology is that all organisms are, in actuality, mechanisms of some sort that we could potentially understand. Where do currently human-understood mechanisms typically come from? I would say they are generally reproduced from mental representations, with the aid of mentally understood simple tools. In a way, our mechania are living beings and we are simply one element in their reproduction. If we died off, they would no longer be able to reproduce.

Since we humans are the defining example of intelligence, and machines require us for their reproduction, it seems to stand to reason that machines (organisms) that don't require us, require something similar. Thus we figure that our "sentience" has an analog in the finer details of the universe, somehow.

By the way, there is no definite difference between design and evolution. To create something, you need to start with a reproducible idea and refine it by making small, reversible changes and testing them for effectiveness. That is by definition an evolutionary process.

If a particular theory does not support Evangelical Christian beliefs, it will be abandoned for a more fitting theory. Why? Because Evangelical Christian beliefs themselves evolve. The more effective the way of explaining them, the more likely that it will survive and reproduce itself within the Christian community. Christianity is purposefully vague on certain points, because the need for adaptability in the light of future discovery has already been forseen. Disproving a religious belief is not possible. The religious person is not so much making a statement as asking a question. If you answer incorrectly, someone is bound to point it out - even though their proposed solution may be worse.

My prediction is that, as evolutionary theory becomes better defined and proven, creationistic and evolutionistic theories will merge. The worse interpretations will simply go extinct. I base this prediction on evolutionary theories. The reason for fundamentalism's continued existence is the fact that certain issues are not addressed satisfactorily by the non-fundamentalist ideas. What needs to be realised is that fundamentalism is an incredibly basic human need, and cannot be denied indefinately. Therefore, the reconciliation of scientific findings to fundamentalist thought is something that will increase both the value of science and the satisfaction of the human element.

The success of the Bible lies in it's ability to tap into the human need for what we could call fundamentalism - the simple explanation - without directly contradicting common sense or direct observation. Other successful religions are this way as well, though generally to a lesser extent. Lesser and extinct religions usually have either more complex explanations or less believable ones.

The biogenesis hurdle is poorly represented on this page, but that's because biogenesis is a seperate topic to irreducible complexity, and self-replication, per se, is not irreducibly complex. Other comments you make are really more relevant to teleological argument, for example. This article is an article about irreducible complexity, and I think that focus is useful and important. Martin 00:15, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

bias in examples

I felt that the section on the examples was biased, and have thus removed some sections of text, indicated below:

Proponents of irreducible complexity argue that without all the components present, the beetle would blow itself up or the remaining parts would serve no useful benefit. They cannot imagine how this system could have evolved, and thus assume that it must have been intelligently designed. By contrast, mainstream evolutionary biologists have discussed a number of ways that this system could have evolved.

First sentence is stating the obvious - if this were not so, we wouldn't include it in a list of possible examples. Second sentence is the writers POV: proponents of irreducible complexity do not believe they are applying an argument from lack of imagination. Third sentence is too vague to be useful or verifiable. Place the details on bombardier beetle first.

Adherents of intelligent design cannot imagine how this system could have evolved, and thus assume that it must have been intelligently designed. By contrast, mainstream evolutionary biologists have discussed a number of ways that this system could have evolved.

As above.

According to the principle of natural selection, it would die out soon. Although Behe writes that he cannot imagine how this system could have evolved, mainstream evolutionary biologists have discussed a number of ways that this system could have evolved.

First sentence is just a restatement of this being a possible example. Remainder as above.

Mainstream evolutionary biologists have discussed a number of ways that this system could have evolved.

Still unverifiable. Give actual ways, such as the scaffolding example, or don't bother. Martin 14:40, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I moved the talkorigins link to the page on bombardier beetles. I also removed the mention of Darwin - as it was not an exact quote, and as the article immediately pointed out that it was misleading, it didn't seem helpful. Some stuff from the section with the very long name: (;-))

Irreducible complexity is a modern version of the argument from design, also known as the argument from complexity; both of these are teleological arguments for the existence of God.

This isn't about conclusions, but forerunners - so I like this stuff in the forerunners section.

However, the immediate implications are simply that the current theory of evolution is flawed.

Yes, which is what we already say a couple paras above. Do we need to repeat?

(The approach of many creationists, though a logical fallacy -- False dilemma, is that since the theory of evolution was motivated to debunk religion, if evolution can be shown to be false then we can return to creationism and nevermind all the other possibilities listed above. Irreducible Complexity is therefore at the forefront of creationist literature.)

That seems like a strawman to me, and somewhat biased. Behe and others are aware of the alternatives. Behe is particuarly impressed by Kauffman, for example. They just consider the alternatives less compelling than some kind of deity.

The argument from irreducible complexity attempts to demonstrate that certain biological features cannot be purely the product of evolution. (Whether it is scientific or not, it should be noted that it is a common sentiment among the layperson, although not articulated very precisely.)

The first bit is repetition again. However, the point about lay sentiment, and creationist literature, is well-made. Perhaps we need a section on promotion/popularisation of irreducible complexity? Martin 15:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Martin, if you think changes need to be made... make them. i just drastically renovated the page so it flows in some kind of logical order with a cohesive narrative. the copy & pasting and paraphrasing was bound to introduce some biased sentencecs and repetition... just edit. if i disagree i will re-edit! User:Plasticlax

Fair enough! I've had a hack at it: see what you think. :) Martin 13:28, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Opposition to links to ID

Even if the irreducible complexity argument properly refuted evolution, the inference of intelligent design is a non sequitur based on a tacit false dichotomy. The correct inference — if evolution had in fact been ruled out — would simply be "something other than evolution did it" rather than the proffered conclusion of "an intelligent designer did it".

I removed this. Firstly, it is attacking a strawman argument: Behe does not argue that ID is the only possible inference from irreducible complexity. Indeed, he explicitly allows for alternative explanations. Personally he believes that Intelligent Design is the most compelling explanation, but he's not constructing a logical proof, so it is inaccurate to accuse him of a false dichotomy.

Secondly, it is duplicated in the section "Significance of irreducible complexity, if found". Martin 21:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity is based on a strawman version of evolution that only operates by adding components. Biologists have long known that evolution subtracts as well as adds and most often simply 'tinkers' with existing material to produce new functions.

I am uncomfortable that the text was removed. I am not sure that it is merely unattributable "opinion". This strikes me as a logical part of the rebuttal section. I'm pretty sure I remember reading a similar argument in Gould's The Panda's Thumb. I've moving it here to preserve the text so we have a chance to think about it a bit longer. Rossami 22:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So something like "Gould, in his book The Panda's Thumb argues that IC is based on a strawman version of evolution". Then it would be an attributed opinion, which would be fine replcement for the first sentence.

The second sentence duplicates content already in the article, such as in the next para - "Evolutionary biologists argue that evolution often works in this kind of blind, haphazard manner in which the function of an early form is not necessarily the same as the function of the later form", and in the para after "Evolution can act to simplify as well as to complicate". So it's redundant, and felt like an argumentum ad nauseam to me. Martin 21:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks like MyRedDice has systematically removed all the substantive criticism of the IC argument, pretending that he is removing "opinion" when actually removing hard logic. Some of this stuff needs to be restored, unless this is intended to serve as a creationist propaganda page. (Look, for example, at some of the stuff that was still in there back at the time I did my last edit.) — B.Bryant 08:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not a Creationist. However, our NPOV policy applies. Unless proponents of IC agree that it is illogical, the article cannot state "IC is illogical". Martin 17:39, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

IOW, your notion of "NPOV" is that any POV other than the proponents' is biased. Sorry, dude, but it's cold hard logic that makes the IC argument unsound. — B.Bryant 04:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

No, the point of wikipedia:Neutral point of view is that any POV is biased. While it is the opinion of many commentators that the IC argument is logically unsound, it is not an opinion shared by proponents of IC, and thus it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Similarly, were I to write "IC is logically sound" or "IC is logically unprovable", this would also be unsuitable. This is not my notion of NPOV, it is Wikipedia's notion of NPOV.

Statements about whether IC is or is not logically sound should be attributed to named advocates. Martin 18:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Gradual Replacement

I like the new text, which is a nice clear example, and a simpler one than is normally given. However, I wonder if "Gradual Replacment" is meant to be the same thing as "biochemical scaffolding", mentioned earlier. They seem very similar, certainly. Also, is "Gradual Replacment" a technical evolution term? Should we have an article on it? Martin 13:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

irreducible complexity requires irreducible complexity

Greetings!

I´m no scientist, so correct me if I´m wrong here:

The basic argument is that irreducibly complex things must been designed by someone or something. Be it man, alien or god. But for any being to be able to engineer or design something like bombardier bee or any other of those examples, the being itself should be irreducibly complex, right? Or does the theory state that humans are not irreducibly complex?

- Kim Soares 2100 GMT, 15th june, 2004.

No - a reducibly complex being can design an irreducibly complex item. For example, conventional biology states that humans are reducibly complex, and humans can design cars, which are irreducibly complex. Martin 18:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Right. I've put in a POV dispute notice as the following User:DLR has reverted my edits.

It needs to be made perfectly clear that the scientific community reject the concept of IC in the lead section.
The external links section needs to include links to those which espouse the scientific community's POV on this matter.
The implications section neeeds a POV rewrite; atleast must should be replaced by may, and it needs to be pointed out that it says nothing of the intelligent designer.

Dunc_Harris|☺ 08:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Put 'em back if it means that much. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this either. I just didn't see what Creationism has to do with this article. Dr. Behe says on page 5 of Darwin's Black Box; "Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be the equivalent to espousing creationism. ... For the record I have no doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (...skipped definition...) fairly convincing, and have no reason to doubt it." So he's not saying that irreducible complexity makes evolution obsolete. He's just saying that he feels a different mechanism operated at the molecular level. Sorry for not quoting him, didn't want to type that much at this hour.

I haven't responded to our discussion in Talk:Evolution because I am (as you might have guessed) currently reading Darwin's Black Box. I will then read the links you've provided (and anything else I find along the way) and re-enter the discussion.
Respectfully - DavidR 12:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

seems to be missing some fields

This article is making some pretty broad claims about reductive physicalism in general that I'm not sure are warranted. While in many areas reductive physicalists vastly outnumber non-reductionists (and non-physicalists), it's certainly not universally accepted. In particular, in philosophy of mind reductive physicalism has seen a vast drop-off in popularity since the 1970s, as many people now feel developing a satisfactory account of mind and brain along those lines is unlikely to be possible. Supervenience is still popular, but outright reductionism is not. I suppose in that respect, philosophy of mind vaguely agrees with intelligent design on this matter, although the relationship is complex: Philosophers of mind do not usually try to argue about the evolution of mind, at least not in explicit terms. --Delirium 01:42, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Editorializing from the article

In the context where these comments were added, they came across as editorializing rather than as adding facts to the article. I am removing them to this Talk page for further discussion. I would also ask that when they are considered for reintegration with the article, please pay attention to our style norms for presenting arguments and counter-arguments. It is very hard to maintain a NPOV when we attempt to interweave line-by-line rebuttals in the article. The case for and the case against should generally be very clearly separated. Rossami (talk) 03:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, the charge of pseudoscience is a false claim in itself. Behe points out the irreducible complex systems in a very through series of descriptions. It is hardly pseudoscidence to make a valid observation and postulate a hypothesis about that observation.
This valid argument rests on a series of interlocking observations and not on the strength of any one particular observation. The plausibility of any argument increases with the number of interlocking evidences.
However, an evolutionary process itself presupposes life and has never successfully demonstrated how life could have evolved initially from random events in any environment.
While this method of replacement may work in a thought experiment it remains much more challenging to demonstrate the actual process of scaffolding, and the specific mechanism for the chemical changes in a reasonable time frame that would benefit the organism.

This portion was moved to the more appropriate "opposition" section as it contains opposing opinions rather than actual information about the concept of irreducible complexity.

Irreducible complexity is rejected by the majority of the scientific community. The main concerns with the concept is that it utilises an argument from ignorance, that Behe fails to provide a testable hypothesis, and that there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. As such irreducible complexity is seen as an example of creationist pseudoscience.

And it has now been moved back to the introduction section. While our style guide strongly discourages tit-for-tat rebuttals, the introductory section should cover all aspects of the article including a brief statement that opposition exists and, whenever possible, a very general statement of why/how/who/etc. This paragraph does so in what I believe to be in a fact-based and NPOV manner. To bury all existence of opposition until 5 screen-shots down in the article would be an inappropriate presentation of the facts and would be a disservice to readers. I must also disagree with the statement that this constitutes "opinion". It is not opinion but testable fact to say that "A is rejected by B" or that "B said C." B may or may not be wrong but B did say it. (By the way, I also cleaned up some accidental duplication of other paragraphs in the same edit.) Rossami (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Justification?

Wondering why Duncharris reverted my changes. Was there any consensus on this? David Bergan 17:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the person arguing to change the article, many people would argue that you carried the burden to establish concensus before you made the original change. Your own edit summary may have contributed to the skepticism. You said that it is a "false statement that ID [Intelligent Design] is a form of the design argument". (emphasis added) On the face of it, that does seem self-contradictory.

You cite a single text as your supporting argument. I do not have a copy available in order to review that specific chapter but the abstracts and critiques that I do have available about the text were unconvincing. I do not see much evidence that Dembski will be vindicated in his thesis. However, that just means that I am personally unwilling to accept the argument by appeal to authority. If you would care to lay the arguments out more clearly, we can consider them carefully on their own merit.

In the meantime, I concur with Duncharris that the current tone of the article more accurately reflects the mainstream point of view and does so in a reasonably NPOV manner. This has been a mildly controversial article. The virtues of being bold must be tempered with caution. Rossami (talk) 18:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree in full with the Dembski text, but I think he is right on distinguishing ID from the design argument. Here's the quote.

Paley's business was natural theology. Intelligent design's business is much more modest: it seeks to identify signs of intelligence to generate scientific insights. Thus, instead of looking to signs of intelligence to obtain theological mileage, as Paley did, intelligent design treats signs of intelligence as strictly part of science... intelligent design attaches no significance to questions such as whether a theory of design is in some ultimate sense true, or whether the designer actually exists or what the attributes of that designer are. (The Design Revolution, pg. 64-65)

Basically, ID says nothing about who did the designing. It only seeks to know whether object X was designed, and pleads agnosticism on all questions of identity, purpose, or intent.

Other objections to the revert...

1) The main concerns with the concept is that it utilises an argument from ignorance How so? Behe clearly framed his argument as "Irreducible complex parts in living systems must have been designed. I researched all these irreducibly complex part in my biochemistry lab. Therefore, these living systems must have been designed." In contrast, the argument from ignorance is "We don't know what did this. Therefore, X did it." Which is not the same form of argument.

2) there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. Concepts don't need evidence. The concept of irreducible complexity is just as valid regardless of whether or not it actually exists in living systems. My revision makes much more sense. While the concept of irreducible complexity is significant, the majority of the scientific community do not agree that Behe's examples are irreducibly complex and therefore do not consititue a challenge for natural selection.

3) As such irreducible complexity is seen as an example of creationist. Intelligent Design and IC are not creationism. Creationism says who did the designing (the God of Genesis) and how he did it (6 days, lots of fast miracles). Behe says himself in Darwin's Black Box that he accepts the evidence for an old earth and universal descent.

4) pseudoscience This is namecalling. And unfounded. Where's the pseudoscience in labeling certain biological systems as IC? It's just a matter of distinction, like how I label carbon-based compounds as organic.

5) And then I put in a clearer definition of IC where Behe humbly acknowledges that there may not be any IC systems, but if so it would challenge Darwinian evolution.

I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion about this. David Bergan 19:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I want some time to think about your several arguments. In the meantime, I'll only comment on ~~two~~ three of them.

In your comment 3 above, I believe you use a definition of "creationism" that is narrower than the definition intended. The term "creationism" encompasses a range of theories and beliefs. To me, the defining characteristic across them is the positing of the fact of creation - a "how" question. While many adherents of Creationism do believe they know the "who" (and many would agree with your implication that it's the God of Genesis), it is not strictly necessary to for (little "c") creationism to address "who". (I may be in the minority in this opinion. Will others please weigh in?)

In comment 4 above, you describe the use of the term pseudoscience as "namecalling". I'm not sure I'd go that far but I would agree that it is a statement of opinion. For the article to remain NPOV, those opinions must be verifiably attributed. My reading of the current text attributes that opinion to "the majority of the scientific community". It is verifiable that members of that community have used the term "pseudoscience" about Behe's theory. However, is there a better way to word the section to make the attribution clearer?

In your 1 above, you asked about the appropriateness of the argument from ignorance comment. With apologies to Behe's actual words, I interpret his reasoning as

I have researched all these complex parts in my lab.
I can not imagine a mechanism by which natural selection could have produced these parts.
Therefore no such mechanism exists.
I will define a class (things which are "irreducibly complex") to describe these parts.

This does seem to me to be a classic application of that logical fallacy. Personally, I have always preferred "argument from lack of imagination" rather than "argument from ignorance". It more clearly describes the concept. But the latter does seem to be the more generally accepted wording among logicians.

I'm not sure if any of those replies helped and I will continue to think about your comments. Rossami (talk) 22:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To note, it is specifically the move from #2 (minor premise) to #3 (inference) in the argument that commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. Defining a class just increases the scale from one instance to many, but the fallacy committed is exactly the same whether it's done or not. siafu 22:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Regarding your framing of the argument from lack of imagination, I think evolutionary theories could be just as fallacious. We'll call it, the argument from wishful thinking. Consider:

I have researched all these complex parts in my lab.
I have not been able to observe a mechanism that bequeathes one part from another.
But I cannot ever resort to thinking these things were designed.
Therefore such a mechanism must exist.

But this is really beside the point because I do not think your version was accurately framed to begin with. The inaccuracy is in part 4. Behe didn't create a new concept. Mousetraps, computers, cars, steamboats, and microwaves were irreducibly complex before we had a term for it. But Behe discovered this concept (or at least popularized more than his predecessors), claimed it was a sign of intelligence (a property of an object that necessitates design), and applied it to his field of expertise. This, therefore, best represents his argument:

Irreducibly complex objects necessitate design.
My research in biochemistry shows that living systems have irreducibly complex parts.
Therefore living systems must have been designed.

Logically it is of the standard deductive syllogistic format. The reasoning is valid. If the premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable. Granted, both premises are under scrutiny, and we cannot claim it is sound unless they are verified. But to say that Behe is appealing to ignorance (or lack of imagination) is a misunderstanding of the logic.

As for creationism/Creationism, we'll need a reliable definition. The Supreme Court (through citing a District Court ruling) identified "scientific creationism" as not just similar to the Genesis account of creation, but in fact identical to it and parallel to no other creation story. (Edwards v. Aguillard citing McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education) Since ID by definition does not engage the questions of who or how or why the object was designed (it only seeks to know if the object is designed), ID cannot be considered creationism. This isn't about ID anyway, it's about IC which is merely a label for one particular sign of intelligence used in the ID movement. But if you want to reference ID, there is no justification for calling it creationism.

And lastly, pseudoscience. Are there any scientists who call the term "irreducible complexity" pseudoscience? Yes, I'll agree that there are quite a few who use that term in reference to ID... but IC? Is it pseudoscience to tell you that I am typing on an irreducibly complex laptop? I don't think so. Perhaps living things do not have irreducible complexity, but that doesn't equate to pseudoscience. Living things also are not radioactive (to use another label that applies to other objects, just as IC may only apply to other objects), but that doesn't mean radioactivity is pseudoscience. Looking forward to further discussion. David Bergan 21:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your "argument from wishful thinking" as you call it is inherently fallacious, as it goes against both Occam's razor and the scientific method in general. Specifically:

3. But I cannot ever resort to thinking these things were designed.

This step has no place in a logical argument. There is no reason to infer that "these things were designed", hence no resorting to it. One could just as easily say "I cannot ever resort to thinking that these things arose in situ from random quantum fluctuations" or any other equally unnecessarily complicated option. The concept of irreducible complexity posits that it is impossible to produce something that is IC through gradual steps. The reason this is termed an "argument from ignorance" is because it is based on a lack of knowledge; that is, it's not obvious how this thing could have arisen from gradual steps, therefore it is impossible. Your laptop, for example, is not "irreducibly complex" in that it's based on decades of refinement and development, or put simply, a series of gradual steps that can be abstracted back to the first simple machines developed by hominids. It is "irreducibly complex" in that it was designed independently by an engineer sitting in a cubicle somewhere, he just didn't have to discover electricity, invent transistors, etc., to do it. Of course, no one is suggesting that your laptop evolved on its own, so the discussion of whether or not it's IC is purely academic.

As far as pseudoscience, there's no actual evidence in support of IC, hence treating it as fact is inherently pseudoscience. Your reference to radiation is a false analogy; no one is claiming that animals are inherently radioactive, and doing so would be insane (as they clearly are not), not pseudoscience. siafu 22:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my argument from wishful thinking is fallacious. That was the point. It is fallacious just as Rossami's argument from lack of imagination is fallacious, and uses the same framework. (Compare 2. I can not imagine a mechanism by which natural selection could have produced these parts. to 3. But I cannot ever resort to thinking these things were designed.) But just because that is how I might view evolutionary biology does not mean that evolutionary biology IS based on that fallacious argument. Similarly, just because Rossami views Behe as researching under his argument from lack of imagination doesn't mean that irreducible complexity/intelligent design IS based on his fallacious argument.

Moving on to your analysis... By the definition of IC, my laptop is most certainly IC. It is made up of many parts where if I took any of them out, the thing would stop working. Consider what would happen if I removed just one of any of the following: the processor, the RAM, the hard drive, the power supply/battery, the motherboard, or the bus. Exactly, no more wikipedia for me. Behe uses the example of a spring-loaded mousetrap... same thing. My point is that irreducible complexity is not a biological term. It is a concept that applies to inorganic things all over the earth. All Behe did was raise the question of whether or not biological systems also have IC parts, because based on his research they do.

"The reason this is termed an "argument from ignorance" is because it is based on a lack of knowledge; that is, it's not obvious how this thing could have arisen from gradual steps, therefore it is impossible." (siafu) Again, the logic isn't framed that way. (Insisting on framing it that way is setting up a straw man. Shouldn't any honest opponent seek to refute the best way an argument can be framed?) The logic is "All IC objects are designed. Biology has IC objects. Therefore some parts of biology were designed." Behe didn't take systems and say, "I don't know how this was made gradually, so until I do I'm going to write books and make money saying they were designed." No, he took systems and said, "Hey look, this is IC. If I take any one of these parts out, the thing doesn't work any more. Based on my knowledge of IC, all inorganic IC objects are designed, and the concept seems to imply that all IC objects (inorganic or organic) necessitate design."

"As far as pseudoscience, there's no actual evidence in support of IC, hence treating it as fact is inherently pseudoscience. Your reference to radiation is a false analogy; no one is claiming that animals are inherently radioactive, and doing so would be insane (as they clearly are not), not pseudoscience." (siafu) How can you say that there is no actual evidence in support of IC? Look at your computer, your car, your watch, your TV... they are all IC. I think what you meant is that there is no evidence that biological systems have IC parts. Fair enough, the point is certainly under dispute. But that doesn't make the concept of IC pseudoscience just because it is unclear whether it applies to biology or not. Think of IC as primarily an inorganic concept, because there isn't any doubt that it exists in many man-made objects... and applying IC to such objects surely isn't pseudoscience. I also think of radiation as an inorganic concept... there isn't much doubt that it exists in many inorganic materials and applying it to such objects surely isn't pseudoscience.

Furthermore, radiation does not become pseudoscience once one person asks, "Do living things have radiation?" Neither does IC become pseudoscience once one person asks, "Do living things have IC parts?" David Bergan 14:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You start the logic of the argument too late. You say, "The logic is "All IC objects are designed. Biology has IC objects. [..]" But your starting sentence "All IC objects are designed" is the one that is derived at by the argument from lack of imagination. The logic leading to this is

"Evolution is supposed to build complex things by adding simple things together. Therefore everything that is too simple to have been generated that way, cannot be made by evolution and must have been designed."

The fallacy here is that because of his lack of imagination, the IC proponent doesn't allow for the fact that evolution is also able to take something away, instead of only adding things. So IC things can be evolved. --Hob Gadling 15:45, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

All IC objects are designed is certainly a premise under investigation, I said as earlier. But it is not an argument from lack of imagination. It instead reads something like this:

Natural selection states that any mutation that gives its possesor an advantage will be propogated throughout the species.
But if the next advantage is irreducibly complex (say, a new organ), then it will require several mutations to get the parts needed for this advantage, where each component is useless on its own.
According to 1., a useless component isn't going to be propogated throughout the species, since it doesn't constitute an advantage for natural selection to operate on.
Therefore, natural selection does not select useless components.
Therefore, natural selection does not select irreducibly complex advantages because they are made up of useless components.

I find this reasoning to be valid. The big if is still whether or not the systems are irreducibly complex. But my point, again, is that to call this an argument from ignorance or an argument from lack of imagination is merely to try to force it into a logical fallacy so people can stop thinking about it, rather than address it in its full and strongest form. David Bergan 16:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The argument from lack of imagination is not that "all IC objects are designed", but that any object is "IC" in the first place, unless you have a specific reason to believe so (like the laptop above). That is, the claim that "a new organ" is IC rests on the inability to find a way to explain it using simpler processes (most often natural selection). Doing so is a clear logical fallacy: argument from lack of imagination, or "argument from ignorance" because it relies on ignorance (in fact on the outright rejection) of other possibilities. Unless you can propose a means to prove a negative, the fallacy stands.

As far as the argument you've presented, even if one accepts the fallacious premise, it still fails to stand as it's operating on a faulty understanding of natural selection. Natural selection "selects" on the level of the individual and not the gene, and this results in neutral, useless, or even disadvantageous traits being selected all the time. For example, the human appendix; evey time a human with the genes for an appendix breeds successfully, that trait is being "selected" even though it's quite useless. This may seem on the surface to be tangential, but in fact it opens up the realm of possibility quite a bit. siafu 18:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well... different authors, different targets. Hob Gadling said that it was the statement All IC objects are designed where the argument from lack of imagination enters. You said it was in that any object is "IC" in the first place, unless you have a specific reason to believe so (like the laptop above). So let's go there.

I elaborated that my laptop was IC because it is dependent on many different components working together to function at all. Now in Darwin's Black Box does Behe ever say that a particular system is IC because he can't think of how it came about with natural selection, or is it because he looks at the eye, and describes how each and every biochemical part is essential for the eye to function? He does it by the latter method. Therefore, he does not argue as you claim, that "a new organ" is IC rests on the inability to find a way to explain it using simpler processes (most often natural selection). No, he calls the "organ" IC because it is composed of several interconnected, interdependent components just like I argued above that my laptop is IC. I'll spell out the argument for clarity.

Definition: An irreducibly complex system is one which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
I look at system X (ie the human eye, or my laptop) and it composed of all these interacting parts.
If I remove ANY of these parts, system X stops working.
Therefore, system X meets the definition of being irreducibly complex.

A critic can certainly show that X is not IC by demonstrating its function minus one of the interacting parts, which is what many biologists are trying to do. That's worthwhile research, to be sure. And if they show that there is no system in biology that is IC, more power to them. I'm only saying that Behe's logic is valid, not sound... His reasoning isn't based on any fallacy, and the article should not say that it is. David Bergan 20:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Irreducible_complexity"