how would you take a stand against the irreducibly complex argument
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.
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.
by Sooner28 5 years ago
1. Complexity requires a designer.2. God is complex.Therefore, God requires a designer.This seems to be the central argument of Richard Dawkins against the existence of God. What say you?
by riddle666 5 years ago
There is this fellow who said god created a body then killed it and then resurrected it to forgive humans.If you want to forgive somebody, will you dance(or do any nonsensical act) before forgiving or you simply forgive?Another person saysThings are complex and every complex thing needs...
by Rishad I Habib 2 years ago
The God Paradox - also known as the Omnipotence paradox which addresses the question whether the existence of an omnipotent entity is logically possible.Paradox of the stone (one version): "Could God create a stone so heavy that even HE could not lift it?" If so, then it seems that God...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 5 years ago
Evolutionary theory posits that through natural selection, a simple organism could, over milions of years, develop into a complex life form. Natural selection ( the process of developing advantageous characteristics, and eliminating disadvantageous ones purely from the perspective of survival)...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|