Is irreducible complexity a problem for evolution?

8/09/2008 | 11:00 AM | Evolved Rationalist

A question for evolutionists: If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference?


An irreducibly complex system is generally defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed. If such a system is found, all it would show is that it did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. However, since this is not the only evolutionary mechanism around, the IDiots who use this argument simply show themselves as ignoramuses when it comes down to how evolution actually works. An irreducibly complex system would not pose a problem for evolution nor justify the design inference.

A reducibility complex system is both a property of the system and of the observer. Not only does the system have to be reduced to its known elements, the observer must also be capable of reducing it. Therefore, when we find an 'irreducibility complex' system, we must ask if we can improve our knowledge of that system. What the IDiots do is to close their eyes and stupidly yell 'God The Designer did it!'.

On the other hand, finding traces of a transcendental Designer would be a discovery worthy of a Nobel Prize. The next step after finding the designer is elucidating its nature and its relationship to our universe. Is the designer an alien from outer space? Is the designer William Dembski? No one has 'proof' on the nonexistence of a partial or total designer, or course, but we have evidence of a self-evolving universe.

The Incredible Dumbasses are after a Stone Age regression to the 'god-of-the-gaps' anti-scientific tactic as their design inference explains nothing at all. What could these irreducibly complex features tell us about the designer or the mechanisms of design? What exactly does the design inference explain apart from 'We don't know yet, so GODDIDIT.'? How does the design inference improve our understanding of how the universe works? Even if evolution is shown to be false, the ID approach is only one out of a vast number of possible answers to the question of origins, and there is no reason to assume that IDiocy is the correct explanation by default.

tl;dr

For the IDiots: Your fail argument is fail. You are doing it wrong.

If you enjoyed this post Subscribe to our feed