Irreducible Complexity? Behe's Mousetrap

The concept of irreducible complexity is used by proponents of Creationism to 'prove' that evolution is impossible. I demonstrate how Michael Behe hasn't shown there is any such thing.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• creationism
• id
• evolution
• irreducible
• complexity
• intelligent
• design
• mouse
• trap
• mousetrap
• proudfootz
• agnosticism
• atheism

[proudfootz]

@therealistone2003

But it's 'intelligent design' which is the pseudo-science. It explains nothing and predicts nothing.

Evolution is science. It actually does explain empirical facts and makes successful predictions.

[therealistone2003]

@zytigon no thank you i dont need that pseudo science in my life. if you believe in evolution fine you have that right. they are just that a whole bunch of interesting ideas. i rather listen to sam harris about naturalism although i do not agree with his beliefs or non beliefs. i can confidently say he is more intellectual than richard dawkins and willing to put his reputation on the line to defend his beliefs. im doing just fine with my belief in god sir.

[zytigon]

@therealistone2003 You'd get on better if you considered that a god might have formed life on earth by a process of evolution. Try reading the excellent books by Richard Dawkins, "The ancestor's tale", " The blind watchmaker", " Climbing mount improbable"; they give a whole lot of interesting ideas about natural history. Dawkins observes that the entity by which life formed shows complete indifference to the suffering or death of animals or even the extinction of species.

[proudfootz]

@therealistone2003

There's no evidence anything on biology was 'designed'.

For example early land vertabrates had simple fin-like feet. Some descendants evolved those forelimbs into hooves like horses, wings like bats, or hands like monkeys. Each is pretty efficient but all clearly modifications of the original.

So the fossil record shows no complexity that can't come from ancestors through modification over time.

[therealistone2003]

@proudfootz WOW YOU STILL dont get the concept you know whats a good example of irreducible complexity the human body. the mousetrap will function if you mangle it the way you did but even if you do it will not work better then the way it was originally conceived you had to alter it physically to prove your point instead of simply removing a component. the human body is irreducible complexity remove or alter any component and it will not function as it was ORIGINALLY designed.that was the point

[proudfootz]

@hairybalooncabbage

We don't even know there is such a thing as an omnipotent spiritual being, or how something non-material can 'create' matter. But a being that is capable of thinking, planning, executing a plan, creating something from nothing, etc - seems pretty complex to me.

It *is* simple to say 'it was magic' but that doesn't count as a meaningful or useful *explanation*.

What would be ludicrous is to abandon science which gives us real knowledge about the world.

[proudfootz]

@hairybalooncabbage

The 'infinite regress' comes in when you need something just as complicated to explain something that is complicated - like an intelligent being is needed to 'create' an intelligent being.

Evolution explains the fossil record that life began as simple forms, eventually evolving the cell, then multi-cellular forms, then life which we recognize as plants and animals. Then those plants and animals evolved over millions of years before they resemble modern forms.

[samsonisdope]

face it DNA is a molecule structure ffs

[hairybalooncabbage]

@proudfootz How does science being cumulative imply that it does not infinitely regress? how do you suppose the universe started? If a naturalistic process caused it, that itself would imply infinite regression, unless you believe the universe began without cause?

How is a omnipotent spiritual being complex? It seems a lot more simple than the complexity of life on earth. Do you really believe that the first cell on this planet assembled by chance and evolved into a human? That is ludicrous.

[proudfootz]

@hairybalooncabbage

The idea is that an intelligent being is complex, and if complexity needs an intelligent being to create it, then every creator needs a creator.

Evolution is cumulative, so there is no 'infinite' regress. The fossil record shows how life developed from simple forms through many forms until modern plants and animals came on the scene. If all these complex forms require creators then there are creators on the scene all the time to replace the extinct forms with new ones.