Irreducible Complexity, Michael Behe, and H. J. Muller

A few years after Charles Darwin book "On the origin of Species" was published, he wrote a long series of letters to some of his peers outlining proofs that would falsify his theory of natural selection and descent with modification; he had done so also in his book, but in personal letters he continued to elaborate on proofs and tests that would prove his theory false. This, of course, is what scientists do: they state a hypothesis and then try extremely hard to prove the hypothesis false.

Within those letters he explained the concept of irreducible complexity, though he did not use the phrase. He also wrote about the concept of scaffolding to explain the appearance of irreducible complexity. As far as I can tell from his journals, Darwin was still a Christian at the time, and I suspect he hoped that some sign of god would still be found in the biosphere.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• irreducible
• complexity
• intelligent
• design
• michael
• behe
• creationism
• creation
• darwin
• IC
• ID
• science
• evolution

[hereliestruth]

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

[Desertphile]

@hereliestruth ; Yes, and if Darwin wrote that he was 100% correct. But so far nobody has found anything that could not have evolved.

[McDaveDJM]

Statements of fact come from a variey of sources - Behe has

stated many interesting and highly probable points, in lieu of

reality - It is clear to anyone with eyes, that the universe and

all life is designed - to deny this, is exposing a mindless religious

conviction, in this case, the religion of evolution... - even

scientists rely on Ockham's Razor to emphasize that the simplest

explanation is all that is needed...

[Desertphile]

"It is clear to anyone with eyes, that the universe and all life is designed"

No evidence, therefore dismissed.

[jwc1926]

What I find so odd is that Behe's fans who keep commenting on this video talk as if they have NEVER before heard the arguments against their position. They speak as if they are being original in defending Intelligent Design with tired old arguments - a fact that clearly demonstrates the shallow depth of their thinking on the matter. All of these non-thinking, unreasoning dolts could take a lesson from the "very Christian" Judge Jones in the Dover case. (To be continued...)

[jwc1926]

Judge Jones (Kitzmiller v. Dover): "...the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

[ironsikes]

@Desertphile And to prove that is a fact you would have to be abole to test it over and over again and get the same results. Plus you should be able to find evidence of that in the fossil record and that has remained to be unseen. And I have read science books thank you very much - in fact I have a Bahcelors of Science, so who is the ass now. Why dont you try attacking my argument rather than me?

[ironsikes]

@Desertphile I am being an ass huh? Gravity and sunlight are both proven facts. And I am not disputing them. I am disputing a theory. Evolution is a theory. Also, Science is based on weither something can be tested over and over again. Evolution can not be tested over and over again, especially since the fossil record keeps showing that Darwin's theory has flaws in. Grant it adapations happen and we adapt to our environments but there is no solid evidence that one speices evolves into another.

[Desertphile]

@ironsikes ; You're being an ass. I do not "support evolution," any more than I support gravity and sunlight. The ONLY "social implications" of evolution is that humanity evolved. Read a fucking science book.

[ironsikes]

@Desertphile You should read the book Total Truth - very inciteful. If you support evolution then you have to support the social implications that come along with it, which means why have morals. If you want to murder some one go ahead because there is no right or wrong - we are just products of chance with no purpose - so why be concerned with how we treat each other.

[ironsikes]

@Desertphile Paleontologists have consistently told evolutionary biologists that the fossil record does not support evolution. Also, a lot of the evidence that evolutionists use has turned out to be fake. Look it up. The peppered moth photo that is used in countless textbooks was actually rigged. But dont believe, me look it up.

[hereliestruth]

@tantzer no, Darwin stated that if irreducible complexity were ever found in any adaptation then his whole theory should be rejected.

[hereliestruth]

I suppose you diehard evolutionists who choose to ignore the obvious (i.e. the fossil records which clearly show it be a farce in such findings as the cambrian explosion) also choose to ignore the fact that man and dinosaurs were contemporaneous.