| rdfs:comment
| - The essence of IC follows thusly: 1.
* Life is complicated, 2.
* We don't understand evolution 3.
* Complicated things don't work when you take them apart (like clocks and zebras for example) Therefore, an unnamed "Intelligent Designer" must have put the parts together to make the "irreducibly complex" things that we don't understand. See, it's all quite scientific, perhaps slightly out of your grasp.
- Irreducible Complexity an argument used to support intelligent design that claims that all parts of a system are required for it to work properly, and the removal of any part would disable the whole system. The idea of irreducible complexity is that some systems are so complex that the removal or alteration of any part would prevent the system from functioning. Proponents of intelligent design claim that irreducible complexity is evidence that the system probably was designed by an intelligent agent of some sort. William Dembski in his book No Free Lunch, states the the following:
|
| abstract
| - Irreducible Complexity an argument used to support intelligent design that claims that all parts of a system are required for it to work properly, and the removal of any part would disable the whole system. The idea of irreducible complexity is that some systems are so complex that the removal or alteration of any part would prevent the system from functioning. Proponents of intelligent design claim that irreducible complexity is evidence that the system probably was designed by an intelligent agent of some sort. For example, a car will not go without an engine. Indeed, the engine will not run without fuel and a starter motor. The designer must ensure that all parts work together to produce the intended function. A car could not just evolve. William Dembski in his book No Free Lunch, states the the following: "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. However, organisms that appear to have no unnecessary parts could have been built up from simpler parts that are no longer necessary. Irreducible complexity has been used by astronomer Fred Hoyle and biochemistry professor Michael Behe to argue against the idea of "evolution through natural selection". Hoyle compares the probability of all the parts of a cell coming together through natural forces to the probability of a cyclone in a hangar assembling all the parts of a Boeing 747 aircraft. William Dembski wrote the following in a essay: In addition, Michael Behe wrote the following: Intelligent design theorists agree with Charles Darwin that a biological system could not make a gradual transition via small successive steps, unless each step provided an advantage to the species. Behe presents several examples of organs and cells which he says could not have evolved through natural forces alone due to their irreducible complexity. Behe introduced and defined this term on page 9 of his work, "Darwin's Black Box": Irreducible complexity is a "single system 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." It is therefore a state of interacting components that could not function without all its parts. In particular, the term is used by proponents of intelligent design to argue that irreducibly complex biological systems cannot evolve. The most commonly used examples of irreducibly complex biological systems are the human compound eye, the blood clotting cascade, and the bacterial flagellum. Kenneth R. Miller describes hypothetical precursors to the flagellum's being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System. However, Professor Behe counters that Miller's criticism of his work is flawed. Critics, including biology professor John McDonald, have countered Behe's toy model, the mouse trap, used to illustrate the concept. McDonald produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part. However, Professor Behe disputes the criticism of John McDonald.
- The essence of IC follows thusly: 1.
* Life is complicated, 2.
* We don't understand evolution 3.
* Complicated things don't work when you take them apart (like clocks and zebras for example) Therefore, an unnamed "Intelligent Designer" must have put the parts together to make the "irreducibly complex" things that we don't understand. See, it's all quite scientific, perhaps slightly out of your grasp. IC proponents have proven that it's a proper scientific theorem by taking apart a blind watchmaker, and observing that he consistently fails to function while in a state of disassembly. Also, since he fails to resume his watch making when put back together, the "blind watchmaker theory" proves that only an Intelligent Designer could have assembled him in the first place. IC, like ID, is in no way related to religion. It simply posits that an unnamed designer made complicated things by means so futuristic, so far outside the realm of observable science, that it (or "He") could be considered to be virtually supernatural.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)