Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Mar 17, 2007
If we are to have a proper debate we all need to use the same definition of Irreducible Complexity. Michael Behe defines it as:
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"
The problem is ID / creationist supporters take this to mean that an IC system could not have evolved. Their mistake is that IC is a statement about a systems present state, not its past history.
Many systems are by definition IC. But for every IC system studied data exists supporting a biologically plausible scenario for their evolution.
So in short, are their IC systems. Yes. Does being IC mean it could not have evolved. NO.