The Evolution of Irreducible Complexity




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.

To download this video go to:

If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.


When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...