how would you take a stand against the irreducibly complex argument

1. 56

   pjcrowposted 14 years ago

   how would you take a stand against the irreducibly complex argument

   replyreport
2. 0

   AKA Winstonposted 14 years ago

   Behe's argument of complexity has failed on so many levels it would require a book to list them all.  The easiest way is to simply show that science has empirically disproved his claim that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex.  So as to be certain there is no mistake, here is how Behe defined his term of Irreducible Complexity:  "An irreducibly complex structure is defined as . . . 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." (Behe 1996a, 39)
   
   Behe's assertion was that the bacterial flagellum was so complex that removing one single part would make it useless, and thus it could not have been produced over time by natural selection, which relies on useful mutations being passed on, as there would have been no benefit to the bacteria for having less than a total, working flagellum.
   
   Unfortunately for Behe's claim, biologists have found a totally functional injector that some bacteria use to inject toxins into cells.  It is called TTSS.  It is now clear that a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins in the flagellum makes up the functional transmembrane portion of the TTSS.
   
   In other words, the TTSS is a flagellum minus some parts.
   
   And what was it again that Behe said about IC?  "... wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
   
   Oops.  So much for the Irreducible Complexity of Intelligent Design.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Butch Newsposted 14 years ago

   It is such a ludicrous argument that it is a waste of time to argue against it.  It isn't even a credible scientific idea.
   
   If it were, one would be able to argue against the existence of an atom and pretty much everything in existence.
   
   But, on a scientific basis, physicists are actually attempting to explain all reality as based upon a singularity which has differences based entirely upon direction of spin.  Spin creates both attraction and repulsion and that sets up billions and billions of possibilities... which would automagically create all kinds of non similar things.  That means, in essence, that all things are reducible to a singular type of reality no matter their shape, size, or characteristic.
   
   Irreducibility is just nonsense.  Goobledegook for idiots.

   replyreport