Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Comments

---

Sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong place, I'm rather new to contributing to wikipedia. I just wanted to point out that as a somewhat unbiased reader (I do have an opinion but I try to push it aside), this sentence: "However, this objection accounts for relatively few of the virtually unlimited potential intermediate stages of evolving features." in the Handicaps and Sexual Selection section seemed rather out of place to me. It doesn't seem to fit into the flow of the previous 2 paragraphs, and I honestly couldn't even tell what it was trying to say.

---

almost a standard bearer for Creationists in their attempt to disprove natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.

1. It's not about Creationists vs. evolutionists, but intelligent design vs. evolutionists. "Can't tell the players without a scorecard."
2. No one is trying to disprove natural selection -- where did you get that?

--User:Ed Poor

---

Perhaps a poor choice of wording, but the whole phrase includes "as a mechanism for evolution". Creationists are a subset of intelligent design and most creationists I talk to use this particular species as an example of irreducible complexity. If others believe that I have introduced a fallacy or non-NPOV into the article, I shall remove that phrase. However, do a search on "Bombardier Beetle" on the web before making the juedgement. --rgamble

Creationism and intelligent design (ID) are allies against evolutionism. ID insists that it's not creationism, and there are some legal aspects to this distinction at [1]. What I'm trying to contribute to evolution debate is information that points out the weaknesses in the pro-evolution argument. I am not a Creationist. I consider Creationists too anti-scientific for my taste. --User:Ed Poor

Ed, I will remove the reference to Creationists. However, I believe the rest of the statement stands on its own. The phrase does not imply that ID or Creationists are attempting to disprove Natural Selection, but rather Natural Selection as a _mechanism_ for Evolution. ie, since irreducible complexity and Natural Selection seem to have irreconcilable differences, Evolution can not always occur through Natural Selection. This seems to me, to be the basis of the argument. More simply put, the argument seems to be, Evolution relies on Natural Selection. To work, Evolution has to get around the problem of irreducible complexity. Natural Selection, while a true part of nature, does not get around the problem of irreducible complexity. Therefore, evolution can not occur. If that sounds correct to you, then the phrase as I put it, sums up the problem rather than introducing a fallacy. --rgamble

What you wrote in the above paragraph should go into the article, which would put irreducible complexity into the context of the evolution debate. Keep up the good work. User:Ed Poor

Minor note: Many books on irreducible complexity pull the this beatle up, since the original book on irreducible complexity used it as its prime example, but the bombardier beatle does not explode as stated, and never has. In fact, the new edition of his work includes a disclaimer. As talkorigins, cited elsewhere, says quite eloquently, this particular creature is not an example of irreducible complexity, and its accompanying entry needs to be edited to suit.

This is not to say irreducible complexity is or is not so, merely that the bombardier beatle cannot be used in an argument for it. (/minor note)

---

Hmmm, given I myself am an evolutionist... ;) Then again, to show alternatives to an argument, the argument must be understood so I'll attempt to work it into the article on my next break. Thanks for the exchange. --Rgamble

---

I would change the bullet item "Assume: Evolution's sole mechanism is natural selection (this is an assumption by some, but not all evolutionists)" to "Assume: Evolution's sole mechanism for adaptation is natural selection." The only real area where Behe is (almost, kinda but not really) making a claim is regarding features which have an apparent function. (Of course, he is ignoring, among other things, the fact that structures can be change function over time, IMO -- witness the evolution of the mammalian inner ear.)--Craig Pennington

---

Just to chime in on this. This is quite interesting, speaking (typing) as someone not having read any details on the idea behind intelligent design. Its not an entirely invalid question, obviouly to ask about how a small mutation, which in itself serves no function yet, though somehow provides for a greater likelihood of survival. It begs the question of mutations - do they develop as in the quantum evolution idea, as i understand it, not just in small twists, but in huge leaps: Perhaps somehow, borrowing genetic code from elsewhere. wow. Extremely interesting speculation. --Sv

---

i was just talking to the "evolutionists" and i got some good links from "them". one was http://talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#irred, which makes a call for disambiguation. (another link pointed out that the classic description of how the bombadier beetle works is quite inaccurate and it would suck to perpetuate that here -- for example, its questionable that the beetle would blow up the link was: http://www.talkorigins.org . Specifically, here is a link devoted to explaining precisely the argument that is oft-repeated by creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html ) anyway, disambiguation also needs to differentiate between the inaccurate use of the term when simply referring to great complexity and also the difference between the the scale of organs and chemistry. at least, that's what i think. :)

---

those who argue for intelligent design in their attempt to disprove natural selection as a potential mechanism for evolution.

What does the above phrase mean? Is there anyone who says that natural selection causes evolution? I thought evolutionists believed (a) that random mutations caused evolution, and (b) that natural selection culls out the unsuccessful products of this process leaving only the competitively successful new species.

Maybe I don't understand evolution well enough to write about it, much less to write about its critics... --Uncle Ed 17:40, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RK, your last edit added nothing to this except to make it POV. Though most sceintists don't agree with Behe's conclusions, he is certainly not 'entirely rejected'. For example, you changed 'contraindicates' to 'refutes', which implies that the question is decided, when it is not. I personally find the previous edit more neutral, and I'd suggest reverting it. Comments anyone? DJ Clayworth 13:46, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is not POV to point out that mainstream scientists reject Christian (and yes, even Jewish) creationism, even in the guise of so-called "Intelligent design". RK 21:40, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This whole entry is too long - maybe somebody can condense it (or recommend it for deletion). This article seems about as long as the article on DNA, but that represents the sum total of the work of thousands of scientists in hundreds of laboratories, and it is fact. The present "article" is a rambling piece of argumentation between scientists who are not really interested (until some school board tries to alter their syllabus) and others who have a fixed belief in the Bible, but for some strange reason dig through scientific papers to find points that they consider either to prove science wrong or to prove that science supports the biblical stories. Take your pick. This might be fine for a bulletin board someplace but it sullies the concept of an encyclopedia. Carrionluggage 04:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be significantly pared down. Jim62sch 18:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

About language, specifically "mainstream scientists".

While I do not endorse the validity of this particular, or any general approach to the refutation of evolution, using charged terms like "mainstream scientists", doesn't quite hit the mark NPOV-wise in an article like this. The term might be nearly neutral in a less controversial article, but here is like sprinkling "true christians" in an article about some small sectarian movement.-- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:06, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Something like "Behe's views are not accepted by a majority of scientists" would probably be accurate and fair. DJ Clayworth 15:45, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The majority of scientists describe these views as out of the scientific mainstream. In any case, most ID proponents don't seriously propose that intelligent aliens created life on Earth, because then we have to ask "how did these aliens come into existence?" Almost all ID proponents in the USA use ID as a tactical euphemism for saying that God made man, just like the Bible says. However, people jump and hollar when you bring up God, so they just "Some intelligent designer" instead. RK 20:44, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but the POV of the majority of scientists should not dictate the terminology of this article. A majority POV is a POV nonetheless. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 21:10, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

I believe, from reading his essays, that Behe is fully aware that his arguments challenge what he calls "orthodox" beliefs on evolution. However, Behe does not believe that mainstream scientists have refuted his theory. Martin 21:30, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Unless he had recently changed his mind, he still believes that it is necessary to believe that God or some other unnamed "intelligent designer" created life. RK 21:40, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

He believes that it is most plausible to believe that an intelligent designer assisted in the evolution of life. Martin 22:03, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Of course, he originally wrote about 'Creation Science'. He only later changed 'creation science' to 'intelligent design' meaning he believes that it is most plausible that a highly specific intelligent designer assisted in the evolution of life. Of course, not intelligent enough just to set the processes in motion that would do it by itself....

The problem remains: if a beetle, let alone a human, is too complex to evolve, where did the designer (God or other) come from?Vicki Rosenzweig 21:50, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A problem which should be addressed at first cause (or first mover?), if it isn't already. Martin 21:59, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this point at Summa Theologica, which requires further work. Martin 13:50, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

External links

If we're going to cite non-peer-reviewed stuff and Behe's Web page, shouldn't there be links to the opposition? I'd like to add something from talkorigins.org. Vicki Rosenzweig 21:50, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm just citing my sources :) Adding other useful links is fine - but please stick to stuff that discuss irreducible complexity specifically, rather than stuff on intelligent design in general. Martin 21:59, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Rewrite is much better. DJ Clayworth 13:20, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks DJ :)

I think the next section I want to add is one on Falsifiability and experimental evidence. On the one hand, some advocates have suggested that irreducible complexity is not falsifiable. Others have pointed to experimental evidence which they believe refutes it. Additionally, Behe points to experiments which he believes are evidence for his hypothesis. I think a section that dealt with these issues together would be quite interesting to students of the philosophy of science. Martin 13:47, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

done. Martin

evolution of flagella

This example is disputed by other biologists who observe that there are flagella which are simpler in form than the type Behe cites yet which function perfectly well despite "missing parts".

Hard to say without specifics, but this seems like explaining the evolution of the pig by saying that the flower is simpler. To refute Behe you don't need systems which are merely simpler, you need precursors that are simpler and possible precursors.

That is a bad analogy. Look at the protein motor complex that makes up a flagella; a more accurate analogy is that one can explain the modern form of a complicated mechanical watch by studying the form of a simpler mechanical watch. Behe wants an analogy to be something like "a flower doesn't explain a pig", but it isn't. RK 01:35, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There are also even simpler bacteria that only have components of Behe's flagellum but whose components perform a myriad of functions apart from propulsion. The key is that the component parts of the complex flagellum can perform many roles in component form.

General concept is described above under Opposition to irreducible complexity, so we don't need to duplicate unless we have a specific example we can use to illustrate that general concept.

There are many specific examples, discussed in the Talk.Origins FAQ. RK 01:35, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum except that it functions as a needle to inject toxins into host cells.

The evolution of flagella article, written by someone not sympathetic to Behe, points out that such examples should have evolved after the bacterial flagellum, and is therefore highly likely to be a successor, rather than a precursor. I moved the example to Evolution of flagella. Martin 22:39, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Type III secretion system is widely beleived in the literature to have been coopted for the early flagella. The "needle" of the Type III system is made of hollow secreted proteins forming around the secretion site and it is easy to see how a mutation causing the secretion of the polymer flagellin could have evolved an early flagella since the flagella is formed by excreting the polymer which forms a hollow tube as more and more flagellin gets excreted until the flagella is too long for more flagellin to get out. I added back a short sentence about the Type III secretion system and a reference. User:Kablamo2007 3 July 2005

Biogenesis?

One facet of ID perhaps poorly represented on this page is the biogenesis hurdle. In order for evolution to occur, self-replicating complex molecules must first come into existence. If we were to say that some hidden part of the universe has human-like thought-like abilities, we would have one possible method for the origin of these mechanisms.

The main thesis of reductionistic biology is that all organisms are, in actuality, mechanisms of some sort that we could potentially understand. Where do currently human-understood mechanisms typically come from? I would say they are generally reproduced from mental representations, with the aid of mentally understood simple tools. In a way, our mechania are living beings and we are simply one element in their reproduction. If we died off, they would no longer be able to reproduce.

Since we humans are the defining example of intelligence, and machines require us for their reproduction, it seems to stand to reason that machines (organisms) that don't require us, require something similar. Thus we figure that our "sentience" has an analog in the finer details of the universe, somehow.

By the way, there is no definite difference between design and evolution. To create something, you need to start with a reproducible idea and refine it by making small, reversible changes and testing them for effectiveness. That is by definition an evolutionary process.

If a particular theory does not support Evangelical Christian beliefs, it will be abandoned for a more fitting theory. Why? Because Evangelical Christian beliefs themselves evolve. The more effective the way of explaining them, the more likely that it will survive and reproduce itself within the Christian community. Christianity is purposefully vague on certain points, because the need for adaptability in the light of future discovery has already been forseen. Disproving a religious belief is not possible. The religious person is not so much making a statement as asking a question. If you answer incorrectly, someone is bound to point it out - even though their proposed solution may be worse.

My prediction is that, as evolutionary theory becomes better defined and proven, creationistic and evolutionistic theories will merge. The worse interpretations will simply go extinct. I base this prediction on evolutionary theories. The reason for fundamentalism's continued existence is the fact that certain issues are not addressed satisfactorily by the non-fundamentalist ideas. What needs to be realised is that fundamentalism is an incredibly basic human need, and cannot be denied indefinately. Therefore, the reconciliation of scientific findings to fundamentalist thought is something that will increase both the value of science and the satisfaction of the human element.

The success of the Bible lies in it's ability to tap into the human need for what we could call fundamentalism - the simple explanation - without directly contradicting common sense or direct observation. Other successful religions are this way as well, though generally to a lesser extent. Lesser and extinct religions usually have either more complex explanations or less believable ones.

The biogenesis hurdle is poorly represented on this page, but that's because biogenesis is a seperate topic to irreducible complexity, and self-replication, per se, is not irreducibly complex. Other comments you make are really more relevant to teleological argument, for example. This article is an article about irreducible complexity, and I think that focus is useful and important. Martin 00:15, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

bias in examples

I felt that the section on the examples was biased, and have thus removed some sections of text, indicated below:

Proponents of irreducible complexity argue that without all the components present, the beetle would blow itself up or the remaining parts would serve no useful benefit. They cannot imagine how this system could have evolved, and thus assume that it must have been intelligently designed. By contrast, mainstream evolutionary biologists have discussed a number of ways that this system could have evolved.

First sentence is stating the obvious - if this were not so, we wouldn't include it in a list of possible examples. Second sentence is the writers POV: proponents of irreducible complexity do not believe they are applying an argument from lack of imagination. Third sentence is too vague to be useful or verifiable. Place the details on bombardier beetle first.

Adherents of intelligent design cannot imagine how this system could have evolved, and thus assume that it must have been intelligently designed. By contrast, mainstream evolutionary biologists have discussed a number of ways that this system could have evolved.

As above.

According to the principle of natural selection, it would die out soon. Although Behe writes that he cannot imagine how this system could have evolved, mainstream evolutionary biologists have discussed a number of ways that this system could have evolved.

First sentence is just a restatement of this being a possible example. Remainder as above.

Mainstream evolutionary biologists have discussed a number of ways that this system could have evolved.

Still unverifiable. Give actual ways, such as the scaffolding example, or don't bother. Martin 14:40, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I moved the talkorigins link to the page on bombardier beetles. I also removed the mention of Darwin - as it was not an exact quote, and as the article immediately pointed out that it was misleading, it didn't seem helpful. Some stuff from the section with the very long name: (;-))

Irreducible complexity is a modern version of the argument from design, also known as the argument from complexity; both of these are teleological arguments for the existence of God.

This isn't about conclusions, but forerunners - so I like this stuff in the forerunners section.

However, the immediate implications are simply that the current theory of evolution is flawed.

Yes, which is what we already say a couple paras above. Do we need to repeat?

(The approach of many creationists, though a logical fallacy -- False dilemma, is that since the theory of evolution was motivated to debunk religion, if evolution can be shown to be false then we can return to creationism and nevermind all the other possibilities listed above. Irreducible Complexity is therefore at the forefront of creationist literature.)

That seems like a strawman to me, and somewhat biased. Behe and others are aware of the alternatives. Behe is particuarly impressed by Kauffman, for example. They just consider the alternatives less compelling than some kind of deity.

The argument from irreducible complexity attempts to demonstrate that certain biological features cannot be purely the product of evolution. (Whether it is scientific or not, it should be noted that it is a common sentiment among the layperson, although not articulated very precisely.)

The first bit is repetition again. However, the point about lay sentiment, and creationist literature, is well-made. Perhaps we need a section on promotion/popularisation of irreducible complexity? Martin 15:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Martin, if you think changes need to be made... make them. i just drastically renovated the page so it flows in some kind of logical order with a cohesive narrative. the copy & pasting and paraphrasing was bound to introduce some biased sentencecs and repetition... just edit. if i disagree i will re-edit! User:Plasticlax

Fair enough! I've had a hack at it: see what you think. :) Martin 13:28, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Opposition to links to ID

Even if the irreducible complexity argument properly refuted evolution, the inference of intelligent design is a non sequitur based on a tacit false dichotomy. The correct inference — if evolution had in fact been ruled out — would simply be "something other than evolution did it" rather than the proffered conclusion of "an intelligent designer did it".

I removed this. Firstly, it is attacking a strawman argument: Behe does not argue that ID is the only possible inference from irreducible complexity. Indeed, he explicitly allows for alternative explanations. Personally he believes that Intelligent Design is the most compelling explanation, but he's not constructing a logical proof, so it is inaccurate to accuse him of a false dichotomy.

Secondly, it is duplicated in the section "Significance of irreducible complexity, if found". Martin 21:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Irreducible complexity is based on a strawman version of evolution that only operates by adding components. Biologists have long known that evolution subtracts as well as adds and most often simply 'tinkers' with existing material to produce new functions.

I am uncomfortable that the text was removed. I am not sure that it is merely unattributable "opinion". This strikes me as a logical part of the rebuttal section. I'm pretty sure I remember reading a similar argument in Gould's The Panda's Thumb. I've moving it here to preserve the text so we have a chance to think about it a bit longer. Rossami 22:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So something like "Gould, in his book The Panda's Thumb argues that IC is based on a strawman version of evolution". Then it would be an attributed opinion, which would be fine replcement for the first sentence.

The second sentence duplicates content already in the article, such as in the next para - "Evolutionary biologists argue that evolution often works in this kind of blind, haphazard manner in which the function of an early form is not necessarily the same as the function of the later form", and in the para after "Evolution can act to simplify as well as to complicate". So it's redundant, and felt like an argumentum ad nauseam to me. Martin 21:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks like MyRedDice has systematically removed all the substantive criticism of the IC argument, pretending that he is removing "opinion" when actually removing hard logic. Some of this stuff needs to be restored, unless this is intended to serve as a creationist propaganda page. (Look, for example, at some of the stuff that was still in there back at the time I did my last edit.) — B.Bryant 08:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not a Creationist. However, our NPOV policy applies. Unless proponents of IC agree that it is illogical, the article cannot state "IC is illogical". Martin 17:39, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

IOW, your notion of "NPOV" is that any POV other than the proponents' is biased. Sorry, dude, but it's cold hard logic that makes the IC argument unsound. — B.Bryant 04:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

No, the point of wikipedia:Neutral point of view is that any POV is biased. While it is the opinion of many commentators that the IC argument is logically unsound, it is not an opinion shared by proponents of IC, and thus it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Similarly, were I to write "IC is logically sound" or "IC is logically unprovable", this would also be unsuitable. This is not my notion of NPOV, it is Wikipedia's notion of NPOV.

Statements about whether IC is or is not logically sound should be attributed to named advocates. Martin 18:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Gradual Replacement

I like the new text, which is a nice clear example, and a simpler one than is normally given. However, I wonder if "Gradual Replacment" is meant to be the same thing as "biochemical scaffolding", mentioned earlier. They seem very similar, certainly. Also, is "Gradual Replacment" a technical evolution term? Should we have an article on it? Martin 13:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

irreducible complexity requires irreducible complexity

Greetings!

I´m no scientist, so correct me if I´m wrong here:

The basic argument is that irreducibly complex things must been designed by someone or something. Be it man, alien or god. But for any being to be able to engineer or design something like bombardier bee or any other of those examples, the being itself should be irreducibly complex, right? Or does the theory state that humans are not irreducibly complex?

- Kim Soares 2100 GMT, 15th june, 2004.

No - a reducibly complex being can design an irreducibly complex item. For example, conventional biology states that humans are reducibly complex, and humans can design cars, which are irreducibly complex. Martin 18:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Right. I've put in a POV dispute notice as the following User:DLR (usurped) has reverted my edits.

1. It needs to be made perfectly clear that the scientific community reject the concept of IC in the lead section.
2. The external links section needs to include links to those which espouse the scientific community's POV on this matter.
3. The implications section neeeds a POV rewrite; atleast must should be replaced by may, and it needs to be pointed out that it says nothing of the intelligent designer.

Dunc_Harris|☺ 08:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Put 'em back if it means that much. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this either. I just didn't see what Creationism has to do with this article. Dr. Behe says on page 5 of Darwin's Black Box; "Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be the equivalent to espousing creationism. ... For the record I have no doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (...skipped definition...) fairly convincing, and have no reason to doubt it." So he's not saying that irreducible complexity makes evolution obsolete. He's just saying that he feels a different mechanism operated at the molecular level. Sorry for not quoting him, didn't want to type that much at this hour.

I haven't responded to our discussion in Talk:Evolution because I am (as you might have guessed) currently reading Darwin's Black Box. I will then read the links you've provided (and anything else I find along the way) and re-enter the discussion.
Respectfully - DavidR 12:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

seems to be missing some fields

This article is making some pretty broad claims about reductive physicalism in general that I'm not sure are warranted. While in many areas reductive physicalists vastly outnumber non-reductionists (and non-physicalists), it's certainly not universally accepted. In particular, in philosophy of mind reductive physicalism has seen a vast drop-off in popularity since the 1970s, as many people now feel developing a satisfactory account of mind and brain along those lines is unlikely to be possible. Supervenience is still popular, but outright reductionism is not. I suppose in that respect, philosophy of mind vaguely agrees with intelligent design on this matter, although the relationship is complex: Philosophers of mind do not usually try to argue about the evolution of mind, at least not in explicit terms. --Delirium 01:42, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Editorializing from the article

In the context where these comments were added, they came across as editorializing rather than as adding facts to the article. I am removing them to this Talk page for further discussion. I would also ask that when they are considered for reintegration with the article, please pay attention to our style norms for presenting arguments and counter-arguments. It is very hard to maintain a NPOV when we attempt to interweave line-by-line rebuttals in the article. The case for and the case against should generally be very clearly separated. Rossami (talk) 03:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• However, the charge of pseudoscience is a false claim in itself. Behe points out the irreducible complex systems in a very through series of descriptions. It is hardly pseudoscidence to make a valid observation and postulate a hypothesis about that observation.
• This valid argument rests on a series of interlocking observations and not on the strength of any one particular observation. The plausibility of any argument increases with the number of interlocking evidences.
• However, an evolutionary process itself presupposes life and has never successfully demonstrated how life could have evolved initially from random events in any environment.
• While this method of replacement may work in a thought experiment it remains much more challenging to demonstrate the actual process of scaffolding, and the specific mechanism for the chemical changes in a reasonable time frame that would benefit the organism.

---

This portion was moved to the more appropriate "opposition" section as it contains opposing opinions rather than actual information about the concept of irreducible complexity.

Irreducible complexity is rejected by the majority of the scientific community. The main concerns with the concept is that it utilises an argument from ignorance, that Behe fails to provide a testable hypothesis, and that there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. As such irreducible complexity is seen as an example of creationist pseudoscience.

And it has now been moved back to the introduction section. While our style guide strongly discourages tit-for-tat rebuttals, the introductory section should cover all aspects of the article including a brief statement that opposition exists and, whenever possible, a very general statement of why/how/who/etc. This paragraph does so in what I believe to be in a fact-based and NPOV manner. To bury all existence of opposition until 5 screen-shots down in the article would be an inappropriate presentation of the facts and would be a disservice to readers. I must also disagree with the statement that this constitutes "opinion". It is not opinion but testable fact to say that "A is rejected by B" or that "B said C." B may or may not be wrong but B did say it. (By the way, I also cleaned up some accidental duplication of other paragraphs in the same edit.) Rossami (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Justification?

Wondering why Duncharris reverted my changes. Was there any consensus on this? David Bergan 17:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the person arguing to change the article, many people would argue that you carried the burden to establish concensus before you made the original change. Your own edit summary may have contributed to the skepticism. You said that it is a "false statement that ID [Intelligent Design] is a form of the design argument". (emphasis added) On the face of it, that does seem self-contradictory.

You cite a single text as your supporting argument. I do not have a copy available in order to review that specific chapter but the abstracts and critiques that I do have available about the text were unconvincing. I do not see much evidence that Dembski will be vindicated in his thesis. However, that just means that I am personally unwilling to accept the argument by appeal to authority. If you would care to lay the arguments out more clearly, we can consider them carefully on their own merit.

In the meantime, I concur with Duncharris that the current tone of the article more accurately reflects the mainstream point of view and does so in a reasonably NPOV manner. This has been a mildly controversial article. The virtues of being bold must be tempered with caution. Rossami (talk) 18:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree in full with the Dembski text, but I think he is right on distinguishing ID from the design argument. Here's the quote.

Paley's business was natural theology. Intelligent design's business is much more modest: it seeks to identify signs of intelligence to generate scientific insights. Thus, instead of looking to signs of intelligence to obtain theological mileage, as Paley did, intelligent design treats signs of intelligence as strictly part of science... intelligent design attaches no significance to questions such as whether a theory of design is in some ultimate sense true, or whether the designer actually exists or what the attributes of that designer are. (The Design Revolution, pg. 64-65)

Basically, ID says nothing about who did the designing. It only seeks to know whether object X was designed, and pleads agnosticism on all questions of identity, purpose, or intent.

Other objections to the revert...

1) The main concerns with the concept is that it utilises an argument from ignorance How so? Behe clearly framed his argument as "Irreducible complex parts in living systems must have been designed. I researched all these irreducibly complex part in my biochemistry lab. Therefore, these living systems must have been designed." In contrast, the argument from ignorance is "We don't know what did this. Therefore, X did it." Which is not the same form of argument.

2) there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. Concepts don't need evidence. The concept of irreducible complexity is just as valid regardless of whether or not it actually exists in living systems. My revision makes much more sense. While the concept of irreducible complexity is significant, the majority of the scientific community do not agree that Behe's examples are irreducibly complex and therefore do not consititue a challenge for natural selection.

3) As such irreducible complexity is seen as an example of creationist. Intelligent Design and IC are not creationism. Creationism says who did the designing (the God of Genesis) and how he did it (6 days, lots of fast miracles). Behe says himself in Darwin's Black Box that he accepts the evidence for an old earth and universal descent.

4) pseudoscience This is namecalling. And unfounded. Where's the pseudoscience in labeling certain biological systems as IC? It's just a matter of distinction, like how I label carbon-based compounds as organic.

5) And then I put in a clearer definition of IC where Behe humbly acknowledges that there may not be any IC systems, but if so it would challenge Darwinian evolution.

I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion about this. David Bergan 19:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I want some time to think about your several arguments. In the meantime, I'll only comment on two three of them.

In your comment 3 above, I believe you use a definition of "creationism" that is narrower than the definition intended. The term "creationism" encompasses a range of theories and beliefs. To me, the defining characteristic across them is the positing of the fact of creation - a "how" question. While many adherents of Creationism do believe they know the "who" (and many would agree with your implication that it's the God of Genesis), it is not strictly necessary to for (little "c") creationism to address "who". (I may be in the minority in this opinion. Will others please weigh in?)

In comment 4 above, you describe the use of the term pseudoscience as "namecalling". I'm not sure I'd go that far but I would agree that it is a statement of opinion. For the article to remain NPOV, those opinions must be verifiably attributed. My reading of the current text attributes that opinion to "the majority of the scientific community". It is verifiable that members of that community have used the term "pseudoscience" about Behe's theory. However, is there a better way to word the section to make the attribution clearer?

In your 1 above, you asked about the appropriateness of the argument from ignorance comment. With apologies to Behe's actual words, I interpret his reasoning as

1. I have researched all these complex parts in my lab.
2. I can not imagine a mechanism by which natural selection could have produced these parts.
3. Therefore no such mechanism exists.
4. I will define a class (things which are "irreducibly complex") to describe these parts.

This does seem to me to be a classic application of that logical fallacy. Personally, I have always preferred "argument from lack of imagination" rather than "argument from ignorance". It more clearly describes the concept. But the latter does seem to be the more generally accepted wording among logicians.

I'm not sure if any of those replies helped and I will continue to think about your comments. Rossami (talk) 22:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(first arbitrary section break to make editing easier)

To note, it is specifically the move from #2 (minor premise) to #3 (inference) in the argument that commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. Defining a class just increases the scale from one instance to many, but the fallacy committed is exactly the same whether it's done or not. siafu 22:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Regarding your framing of the argument from lack of imagination, I think evolutionary theories could be just as fallacious. We'll call it, the argument from wishful thinking. Consider:

1. I have researched all these complex parts in my lab.
2. I have not been able to observe a mechanism that bequeathes one part from another.
3. But I cannot ever resort to thinking these things were designed.
4. Therefore such a mechanism must exist.

But this is really beside the point because I do not think your version was accurately framed to begin with. The inaccuracy is in part 4. Behe didn't create a new concept. Mousetraps, computers, cars, steamboats, and microwaves were irreducibly complex before we had a term for it. But Behe discovered this concept (or at least popularized more than his predecessors), claimed it was a sign of intelligence (a property of an object that necessitates design), and applied it to his field of expertise. This, therefore, best represents his argument:

1. Irreducibly complex objects necessitate design.
2. My research in biochemistry shows that living systems have irreducibly complex parts.
3. Therefore living systems must have been designed.

Logically it is of the standard deductive syllogistic format. The reasoning is valid. If the premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable. Granted, both premises are under scrutiny, and we cannot claim it is sound unless they are verified. But to say that Behe is appealing to ignorance (or lack of imagination) is a misunderstanding of the logic.

As for creationism/Creationism, we'll need a reliable definition. The Supreme Court (through citing a District Court ruling) identified "scientific creationism" as not just similar to the Genesis account of creation, but in fact identical to it and parallel to no other creation story. (Edwards v. Aguillard citing McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education) Since ID by definition does not engage the questions of who or how or why the object was designed (it only seeks to know if the object is designed), ID cannot be considered creationism. This isn't about ID anyway, it's about IC which is merely a label for one particular sign of intelligence used in the ID movement. But if you want to reference ID, there is no justification for calling it creationism.

And lastly, pseudoscience. Are there any scientists who call the term "irreducible complexity" pseudoscience? Yes, I'll agree that there are quite a few who use that term in reference to ID... but IC? Is it pseudoscience to tell you that I am typing on an irreducibly complex laptop? I don't think so. Perhaps living things do not have irreducible complexity, but that doesn't equate to pseudoscience. Living things also are not radioactive (to use another label that applies to other objects, just as IC may only apply to other objects), but that doesn't mean radioactivity is pseudoscience. Looking forward to further discussion. David Bergan 21:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your "argument from wishful thinking" as you call it is inherently fallacious, as it goes against both Occam's razor and the scientific method in general. Specifically:

3. But I cannot ever resort to thinking these things were designed.

This step has no place in a logical argument. There is no reason to infer that "these things were designed", hence no resorting to it. One could just as easily say "I cannot ever resort to thinking that these things arose in situ from random quantum fluctuations" or any other equally unnecessarily complicated option. The concept of irreducible complexity posits that it is impossible to produce something that is IC through gradual steps. The reason this is termed an "argument from ignorance" is because it is based on a lack of knowledge; that is, it's not obvious how this thing could have arisen from gradual steps, therefore it is impossible. Your laptop, for example, is not "irreducibly complex" in that it's based on decades of refinement and development, or put simply, a series of gradual steps that can be abstracted back to the first simple machines developed by hominids. It is "irreducibly complex" in that it was designed independently by an engineer sitting in a cubicle somewhere, he just didn't have to discover electricity, invent transistors, etc., to do it. Of course, no one is suggesting that your laptop evolved on its own, so the discussion of whether or not it's IC is purely academic.

As far as pseudoscience, there's no actual evidence in support of IC, hence treating it as fact is inherently pseudoscience. Your reference to radiation is a false analogy; no one is claiming that animals are inherently radioactive, and doing so would be insane (as they clearly are not), not pseudoscience. siafu 22:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my argument from wishful thinking is fallacious. That was the point. It is fallacious just as Rossami's argument from lack of imagination is fallacious, and uses the same framework. (Compare 2. I can not imagine a mechanism by which natural selection could have produced these parts. to 3. But I cannot ever resort to thinking these things were designed.) But just because that is how I might view evolutionary biology does not mean that evolutionary biology IS based on that fallacious argument. Similarly, just because Rossami views Behe as researching under his argument from lack of imagination doesn't mean that irreducible complexity/intelligent design IS based on his fallacious argument.

Moving on to your analysis... By the definition of IC, my laptop is most certainly IC. It is made up of many parts where if I took any of them out, the thing would stop working. Consider what would happen if I removed just one of any of the following: the processor, the RAM, the hard drive, the power supply/battery, the motherboard, or the bus. Exactly, no more wikipedia for me. Behe uses the example of a spring-loaded mousetrap... same thing. My point is that irreducible complexity is not a biological term. It is a concept that applies to inorganic things all over the earth. All Behe did was raise the question of whether or not biological systems also have IC parts, because based on his research they do.

"The reason this is termed an "argument from ignorance" is because it is based on a lack of knowledge; that is, it's not obvious how this thing could have arisen from gradual steps, therefore it is impossible." (siafu) Again, the logic isn't framed that way. (Insisting on framing it that way is setting up a straw man. Shouldn't any honest opponent seek to refute the best way an argument can be framed?) The logic is "All IC objects are designed. Biology has IC objects. Therefore some parts of biology were designed." Behe didn't take systems and say, "I don't know how this was made gradually, so until I do I'm going to write books and make money saying they were designed." No, he took systems and said, "Hey look, this is IC. If I take any one of these parts out, the thing doesn't work any more. Based on my knowledge of IC, all inorganic IC objects are designed, and the concept seems to imply that all IC objects (inorganic or organic) necessitate design."

"As far as pseudoscience, there's no actual evidence in support of IC, hence treating it as fact is inherently pseudoscience. Your reference to radiation is a false analogy; no one is claiming that animals are inherently radioactive, and doing so would be insane (as they clearly are not), not pseudoscience." (siafu) How can you say that there is no actual evidence in support of IC? Look at your computer, your car, your watch, your TV... they are all IC. I think what you meant is that there is no evidence that biological systems have IC parts. Fair enough, the point is certainly under dispute. But that doesn't make the concept of IC pseudoscience just because it is unclear whether it applies to biology or not. Think of IC as primarily an inorganic concept, because there isn't any doubt that it exists in many man-made objects... and applying IC to such objects surely isn't pseudoscience. I also think of radiation as an inorganic concept... there isn't much doubt that it exists in many inorganic materials and applying it to such objects surely isn't pseudoscience.

Furthermore, radiation does not become pseudoscience once one person asks, "Do living things have radiation?" Neither does IC become pseudoscience once one person asks, "Do living things have IC parts?" David Bergan 14:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You start the logic of the argument too late. You say, "The logic is "All IC objects are designed. Biology has IC objects. [..]" But your starting sentence "All IC objects are designed" is the one that is derived at by the argument from lack of imagination. The logic leading to this is

"Evolution is supposed to build complex things by adding simple things together. Therefore everything that is too simple to have been generated that way, cannot be made by evolution and must have been designed."

The fallacy here is that because of his lack of imagination, the IC proponent doesn't allow for the fact that evolution is also able to take something away, instead of only adding things. So IC things can be evolved. --Hob Gadling 15:45, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

All IC objects are designed is certainly a premise under investigation, I said as earlier. But it is not an argument from lack of imagination. It instead reads something like this:

1. Natural selection states that any mutation that gives its possesor an advantage will be propogated throughout the species.
2. But if the next advantage is irreducibly complex (say, a new organ), then it will require several mutations to get the parts needed for this advantage, where each component is useless on its own.
3. According to 1., a useless component isn't going to be propogated throughout the species, since it doesn't constitute an advantage for natural selection to operate on.
4. Therefore, natural selection does not select useless components.
5. Therefore, natural selection does not select irreducibly complex advantages because they are made up of useless components.

I find this reasoning to be valid. The big if is still whether or not the systems are irreducibly complex. But my point, again, is that to call this an argument from ignorance or an argument from lack of imagination is merely to try to force it into a logical fallacy so people can stop thinking about it, rather than address it in its full and strongest form. David Bergan 16:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The argument from lack of imagination is not that "all IC objects are designed", but that any object is "IC" in the first place, unless you have a specific reason to believe so (like the laptop above). That is, the claim that "a new organ" is IC rests on the inability to find a way to explain it using simpler processes (most often natural selection). Doing so is a clear logical fallacy: argument from lack of imagination, or "argument from ignorance" because it relies on ignorance (in fact on the outright rejection) of other possibilities. Unless you can propose a means to prove a negative, the fallacy stands.

As far as the argument you've presented, even if one accepts the fallacious premise, it still fails to stand as it's operating on a faulty understanding of natural selection. Natural selection "selects" on the level of the individual and not the gene, and this results in neutral, useless, or even disadvantageous traits being selected all the time. For example, the human appendix; evey time a human with the genes for an appendix breeds successfully, that trait is being "selected" even though it's quite useless. This may seem on the surface to be tangential, but in fact it opens up the realm of possibility quite a bit. siafu 18:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well... different authors, different targets. Hob Gadling said that it was the statement All IC objects are designed where the argument from lack of imagination enters. You said it was in that any object is "IC" in the first place, unless you have a specific reason to believe so (like the laptop above). So let's go there.

I elaborated that my laptop was IC because it is dependent on many different components working together to function at all. Now in Darwin's Black Box does Behe ever say that a particular system is IC because he can't think of how it came about with natural selection, or is it because he looks at the eye, and describes how each and every biochemical part is essential for the eye to function? He does it by the latter method. Therefore, he does not argue as you claim, that "a new organ" is IC rests on the inability to find a way to explain it using simpler processes (most often natural selection). No, he calls the "organ" IC because it is composed of several interconnected, interdependent components just like I argued above that my laptop is IC. I'll spell out the argument for clarity.

1. Definition: An irreducibly complex system is one which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
2. I look at system X (ie the human eye, or my laptop) and it composed of all these interacting parts.
3. If I remove ANY of these parts, system X stops working.
4. Therefore, system X meets the definition of being irreducibly complex.

A critic can certainly show that X is not IC by demonstrating its function minus one of the interacting parts, which is what many biologists are trying to do. That's worthwhile research, to be sure. And if they show that there is no system in biology that is IC, more power to them. I'm only saying that Behe's logic is valid, not sound... His reasoning isn't based on any fallacy, and the article should not say that it is. David Bergan 20:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a straw man. The article says:

"Behe has been accused of using an argument by lack of imagination, or constructing a "God of the gaps."

It does not claim that the fallacy is supposed to be between "All IC objects are designed" and "Therefore living systems must have been designed". All your attempts to prove that Behe's fallacy is not in that part of the argument is beside the point. He does commit that fallacy, but he does it at a place where you carefully chose not to look for it. --Hob Gadling July 7, 2005 12:26 (UTC)

Where is this fallacy committed? If you read my comments I show precisely how Behe's reasoning is not "God of the gaps" nor an argument from lack of imagination. I believe it is a valid deductive argument, but if I overlooked something, please explicitly point out my error. David Bergan 7 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)

The fallacy is in the sentence "All IC objects are designed". Looking for the fallacy behind that point (that is, in the conclusions drawn from that) is meaningless, because the spoon has already been bent at that point. "All IC objects are designed" is false already. How did Behe arrive at that false claim? That is where you have to look for the fallacy. --Hob Gadling 11:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

The fallacy is in the sentence "All IC objects are designed". - Please address my response from June 9 where you made the same claim. I copied it here for convenience. David Bergan 14:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

All IC objects are designed is certainly a premise under investigation, I said as earlier. But it is not an argument from lack of imagination. It instead reads something like this:

1. Natural selection states that any mutation that gives its possesor an advantage will be propogated throughout the species.
2. But if the next advantage is irreducibly complex (say, a new organ), then it will require several mutations to get the parts needed for this advantage, where each component is useless on its own.
3. According to 1., a useless component isn't going to be propogated throughout the species, since it doesn't constitute an advantage for natural selection to operate on.
4. Therefore, natural selection does not select useless components.
5. Therefore, natural selection does not select irreducibly complex advantages because they are made up of useless components.

I find this reasoning to be valid. The big if is still whether or not the systems are irreducibly complex. But my point, again, is that to call this an argument from ignorance or an argument from lack of imagination is merely to try to force it into a logical fallacy so people can stop thinking about it, rather than address it in its full and strongest form. David Bergan 16:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The mistake is in the assumption that "irreducibly complex" organs have to evolve "from below", that is, by adding things ("say, a new organ"). This is the lack of imagination. An organ ABC (consisting of A, B, and C) may be "irreducibly complex", but an organ consisting of A, B, C, and D may not - like this:

• D is useful,
• an organ consisting of A and D is useful,
• an organ consisting of A, B, and D is useful,
• an organ consisting of A, B, C, and D is useful,
• an organ consisting of A, B, and C is useful.

Now you see there is a viable way for evolution of the ABC organ. Behe and you lacked the imagination for thinking of this way, and you started from the assumption that evolution has to build things by adding, not taking away. Another possibility is change of function. This is very common in evolution. --Hob Gadling 15:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. I guess I didn't understand your position as well as I thought I did.

Anyway, let's examine the ABCD example. Just to see if I can get the concept, I'm going to apply it to a hypothetical evolution of a current frog's eye (D) to the next best frog's eye (ABC).

• (Current Frog Eye) is useful
• (Current Frog Eye) and (Protein A) is useful as a new eye.

Hmmm... at this point, the analogy seems to break down. The reason is because the AD is not the next best eye... ABC is. If AD were the next best eye, then the next best eye isn't Irreducibly Complex and the conversation is irrelevant. But let me try to make another run at it...

• (Current Frog Eye) is useful
• (Current Frog Eye) and (Protein A) is useful as a new inner ear.

This doesn't work either, because our frog just lost its eye. It also is making the assumption that the new inner ear is not Irreducibly Complex... it's just a simple one protein addition to the eye. But let me try another...

• (Current Frog Eye) is useful
• (Current Frog Eye) is still useful on its own and we added (Protein A) which is useful as helper in the digestive system.
• (Current Frog Eye) is still useful on its own and (Protein A) is still useful as helper in the digestive system and we added (Protein B) which is a helper in the urinary tract.
• (Current Frog Eye) is still useful on its own and (Protein A) is still useful as helper in the digestive system and (Protein B) is still a helper in the urinary tract, and we added (Protein C) which is a helper in the circulatory system.
• At this point Kermit has ABCD via natural selection.
• Once proteins ABC get together, they form a new, enhanced, eye together with nerve connections to the brain and all.
• The old frog eye (D) gets sloughed off because the frog stops using that eye.

This still seems super-hokey, to me. I must be missing the point somewhere. Can you help me with a better example of how this principle works? Thanks. David Bergan 16:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It isn't an analogy, it's evolutionary theory, which you have quite spectacularly failed to grasp. Now, since we're talking about proteins, try reading the article on gene duplication. There are also examples of whole organs being adapted to new purposes, but there is really little point in you trying to convince us of the validity of your stupid strawmen. Dunc|☺ 16:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting link. I only asked that someone please try to help me understand the ABCD example with a real world observation or analogy, because my small brain couldn't do it. I'm not out to convince anyone of anything that isn't true. If I'm wrong, you can be sure that I will admit it. But first I need to better understand the ABCD example, before I can praise its truth and explain it to my friends. If I am raising straw men, you can be sure that I am doing it by ignorance, not by intention. David Bergan 17:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to understand it. You don't need an example. As it is, it's a refutation of the assumption that "irreducibly complex" features cannot evolve. It shows that Behe's unspoken assumption that features have to evolve "from below" is wrong, so his reasoning breaks down. Insisting on details until one fully understands is the argument from ignorance. It's like "the explanation does not exist until I fully understand it". But anyway, here goes a more detailed example:

Feature D does fulfil the function of X.

Feature A helps D fulfilling the function of X, so it evolves and we have AD.

Feature B helps AD fulfilling the function of X, so it evolves and we have ABD.

Feature C helps ABD fulfilling the function of X, so it evolves and we have ABCD.

Feature C, together with A and B, also fulfils the new function of Y, so the critter can expand into a new niche.

Speciation happens. Some critters stay in niche 1, others go to niche 2. We now look at the critters in niche 2.

Function X is not needed anymore since the critter does live in another niche where X is not helpful.

Feature D goes away since it is a waste of resources.

Features ABC, fulfilling the function Y, are left.

Michael Behe looks at it and says "this can't have evolved!" because he can't imagine the way evolution went.

"Evolution is smarter than you are." -- Leslie Orgel

Scientists have to be humble. They can't use the reasoning that something can't happen just because they don't understand it. That would be arrogant und conflict with science's underlying tenet that humans are fallible. But it happened again and again, and it failed again and again. --Hob Gadling 10:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but I'm not sure that it is valid. When you say, Feature A helps D fulfilling the function of X, so it evolves and we have AD you are actually saying that function X was not irreducibly complex in the first place. If function X is irreducibly complex, then (by definition) it requires multiple mutations to be enhanced, each of which are useless on their own.

When talking about irreducible complexity, the subject was Y, not X. Function Y is irreducibly complex. Function Y is not fulfilled with anything less than A plus B plus C. And my explanation was a way to evolve the irreducibly complex function Y from scratch. X is not IC, but that's irrelevant for the point.

So then, is it more like the digestion protein example I gave? Do you have a better example for us? David Bergan 15:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm losing patience with you. You are not even trying to understand, and you obviously do not intend to admit being wrong and say "Irreducibly complex features are no problem for evolution". I showed that Behe's assumption was wrong, and you keep weaseling. But I'm not surprised - that's exactly what I expect from creationists. I think I could give you a hundred examples and you would stay in the "huh?" mode. This is one of the reasons why "I don't get it" is not an argument - the side using this argument has the option of not getting it forever, thus "winning" the argument. --Hob Gadling 17:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, you haven't given me one example, much less a hundred. You gave me some letters and asked me to sort it out on my own. So I tried, and then I was called an idiot because I could only put together a bad example of your reasoning. No one wins if you leave the discussion. No one wins unless we find the truth, and then we both win. David Bergan 17:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not call you an idiot. I'm sorry for having been clear enough. I said you would stay in the "huh" mode, and the reason for this is: as soon as you understand it, you lose the debate. So staying in "huh" mode gives you an advantage in the debate. And this is one reason why "I don't get it" is not an argument - because it would be invincible if it were allowed. --Hob Gadling 16:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Insisting on details until one fully understands is the argument from ignorance. - I prefer to call it learning. Which is all I am trying to do, learn the concepts and find the truth. David Bergan 14:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Depends on the context. When there are two rival explanations, and two groups of people discussing against each other, then if one of the groups uses "I don't understand your explanation, therefore mine is better" as an argument, it's the argument from ignorance. And that is the context here. Come on! Behe, Dembski, Johnson are writing books that say nothing but "I don't get it"! And they think that is an argument against evolution! They don't call it "learning". ID is pseudoscience, clear and simple. --Hob Gadling 09:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The books don't say "I don't get it" therefore, "ID". If you read one, it would tell you why they think there is a limit to what nature can do on its own without intelligent input, and why (they think) organic systems are past that limit. But let's put this aside, because I am mainly interested in learning about your ABCD example, so that I may know the truth and convert to your side. David Bergan 15:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course they don't say it in those words. They use camouflage. And I refuse to continue this pointless lesson. --Hob Gadling 17:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

(second arbitrary section break to make editing easier)

I think the definitions are drifting in this ABCD example. This issue is not whether Function Y is or is not irreducibly complex. The function is a verb (for example, to see). The question is whether the organ which performs this function (the eye) is necessarily irreducibly complex. To clarify the example above (at the risk of putting words into the mouth of Ann, a hypothetical believer in irreducible complexity):

• Ann investigates organ ABC which performs function Y.
• Ann investigates A, B, C, AB, AC and BC. She determines that no subset of ABC can perform function Y.
• Ann concludes that organ ABC is irreducibly complex.

So far, this is a mere definition. It expresses no value judgment. It creates a term to describe a condition as Ann thinks it exists in the organism today. The logical flaw occurs in the next step when:

• Because organ ABC could not have been built up from any of it's component parts, Ann concludes that evolution by natural selection is insufficient to explain the existence of organ ABC.

This is Ann's "argument from lack of imagination". Ann failed to consider alternate pathways which could have led to the evolution of organ ABC. In this example, she overlooked the subtractive pathway described above. She has incorrectly assumed that the predecessor organ to organ ABC must have been a component of ABC. Rossami (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with this. I would say that the first part (the definition part) is IC and that it (as you say) "expresses no value judgment". The second part Because organ ABC could not... is what I would call Intelligent Design. Therefore, IC is not pseudoscience, it's merely a definition/concept/category/label. But ID could be called pseudoscience because it extrapolates the concept of IC into a statement about nature: All IC objects were designed. (This is what we're discussing down in the pseudoscience section.)

Here, Hob and I are trying to get to the bottom of this "argument from lack of imagination" thing. Behe's book never says, "I can't imagine how this happened, therefore it didn't." Rather it gives an argument of this form (copied from above):

1. Natural selection states that any mutation that gives its possesor an advantage will be propogated throughout the species.
2. But if the next advantage is irreducibly complex (say, a new organ), then it will require several mutations to get the parts needed for this advantage, where each component is useless on its own.
3. According to 1., a useless component isn't going to be propogated throughout the species, since it doesn't constitute an advantage for natural selection to operate on.
4. Therefore, natural selection does not select useless components.
5. Therefore, natural selection does not select irreducibly complex advantages because they are made up of useless components.

This is a critique of natural selection based on the definitions of natural selection and irreducibly complex. To call this "an argument from lack of imagination" is really only a means of dismissing it without addressing the logic or the definitions. Hob is trying to tell me how natural selection could get around this with the ABCD analysis, but so far we haven't gotten an example that explains it. David Bergan 17:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I read the same numbered bullets and do conclude that Behe says a variant of "I can't imagine how this happened, therefore it didn't." Specifically, there are a number of assumptions hidden in the wording of bullet 2. The failure to see and address these hidden assumptions form the basis for the claim that Behe commits argument from lack of imagination. For example,

• There is an assumption that the predecessor component or predecessor organ performed the same function. If the predecessor organ (which is not irreducibly complex) performed function X but the new organ performs both X and Y (or even just Y), then the next advantage's components were not useless on their own even if the new organ is irreducibly complex with respect to function Y.
• There is an assumption that next advantage is necessarily built up from components and specifically from multiple components. It ignores the possibility that the current state was achieved through subtraction and that the components prior to the subtraction may have been individually useful.

In addition, bullet three is logically flawed by itself. The observation that a beneficial mutation is generally preserved (and that a harmful mutation is generally culled) says nothing about the corollary. You can not logically conclude anything about a neutral mutation. If a mutation brings no advantage but also brings no cost (or so little cost that a portion of the population survives despite this mutation), it may or may not be preserved. In fact, there is considerable evidence now that populations of organisms do accumulate random neutral mutations.

Furthermore, the example says little about a mutation which is beneficial in one environment but harmful in another. (The example of the mutation for sickle-cell anemia comes to mind.) Something may appear to be harmful and yet is still preserved. Our hypothetical observer Ann sees this and concludes that natural selection must be incomplete. She has failed to imagine the circumstance in which that same mutation is beneficial.

This changes bullet 4. Natural selection does not actively select for useless mutations but it may allow them and it is conceivable that those useless mutations may later become useful. Making a logical inference without excluding this possibility is, again, a logically flawed argument. Rossami (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, (or more specifically) mutations occur from random processes and natural selection merely influences their spread. This randomness means that "functions" of traits are sometimes relatively subjective and inconstant. siafu 19:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Great response Rossami! Now I have something I understand and can discuss. Let me break down my reactions.

• Dual-functioning organs? I agree that hypothetically you could build an IC function based on a RC (reducibly complex) function as you suggest. But do such organs exist? Yes, I agree that the argument would have to be reworded because this is a possibility, but I'm just curious if anyone's raised up an IC organ we know about and told us that they think it developed like this.
• Direct Vs Indirect Natural selection. Perhaps the argument is still valid as a critique of "direct" natural selection? If organ ABC is IC, and the next advantage is also IC, we know that "direct" natural selection won't get there. The eye isn't going to go through successive linear-ish improvements; if it gets to the next best eye, it was a random/chaotic/haphazard method.
• Explain "subtraction" a little more and why that's relevant to IC.
• I agree with your analysis of neutral mutations. However, the original bullet 4 only said that natural selection doesn't select useless/neutral mutations. It didn't say that natural selection terminated them like it would for bad mutations. But the way you reworded it is clearer, I like it.
• Verdict. I would say that making these revisions would change our conclusion to read something like: "An irreducibly complex organ was not actively selected by natural selection, and was not built in any sort of a sequential/linear-like manner. Therefore we know that the IC organ either (a) just "happened" as the lucky result of random components waiting around for the rest to fall in place and finally make them all tick, or (b) was built in a dual-function manner where the other function of the organ MUST have been reducible. And in case (b), it's again a case of luck that the components that make the reducible function excel just happen to make their own IC component.
• Verdict II. If Verdict I was valid, we know that species therefore never "adapt" an IC component. If an ice age came and the elephants needed an IC component to survive the cold, they're only chance is to luckily get the adaptation at the right time. But if they only needed a reducible component to survive the cold, they adapt through natural selection and avoid extinction.

Thanks for the lucid reply. I hope my comments were also easy to understand. David Bergan 21:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to try to separate your thoughts so they can be discussed or debated individually.

• Do dual-functioning organs exist? (and the variant "Can organs suddenly change function?")
  • I know of several hypotheses about dual-functioning or changing-function organs during evolution. The first one I remember reading was an explanation of the proto-wing as an aid to catching insects. A competing theory suggested that the proto-wing may have had its origins as a heat-dissipation organ. To the best of my knowledge, those hypotheses were never proven and I'm not sure if they are even still considered reasonable. I will defer to the professional biologists in the crowd for better evidence of this phenomenon. Regardless, evidence of this phenomenon is not strictly necessary in order to challenge the logical inferences above. It is sufficient to propose a plausible exception. The burden of proof is on our hypothetical believer Ann to disprove the possibility of a dual-functioning organ in order to shore up her chain of logic. Rossami (talk)
  • In terms of this discussion it's somewhat misguided to equate traits with functionality. As I mentioned briefly below, traits do not arise for any particular purpose and natural selection is just the effect of certain organisms being able to make more gene-inheriting organisms than others. The wing as an insect-catcher, glider, or heat exchanger are all well-known, and helpful, but somewhat (as above) misguided. Another famous example of discussion is UG for which the concept of exaptation was coined. There are plenty of traits that don't appear to have any "function" at all, and many more that have many "functions" based on perspective (e.g., the hand); are we to assume then that there's some huge cost involved in changing "function"? Clearly not. siafu 23:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• "Direct vs Indirect" Natural Selection
  • I think here we have the core of the misunderstanding. All evolution is random, chaotic and haphazard. There is no such thing as "direct" natural selection. Selection occurs at the individual level but the individual is a complicated mass of semi-random genes in semi-random circumstances. Within the individual, some genes are harmful, some beneficial, many neutral. Some environments and life experiences are forgiving, others harsh, most in the middle. The survival of an individual is influenced by the genes but a single gene may have little to do with it. Only when you get to the level of entire populations of individuals can you get to statistical significance. Those who view evolution as a simple linear process are taking a very simplified view which has only limited correlation with the way evolution really works. In fairness, most discussions of evolution use the linear simplification. In fact, it's really only since the mathematical theory of chaos was applied to biology that we've even had the words to try to talk about it. Rossami (talk)
  • That'll teach me to respond before reading down further. Well put. siafu 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Subtraction
  • Subtraction or "scaffolding" is a simplified example of a non-linear process in evolution. In our example above, organ ABC is irreducibly complex with respect to function Y. Yet organ ABC evolved from organ ABCD in a single incremental step and ABCD was not irreducible. Again, it's not necessary to prove that scaffolding exists. It is sufficient that it is a plausible theory in order to disrupt Ann's chain of logic. Rossami (talk)
  • ... because Ann's chaing of logic is inherently dependent on their being no other possibilities in order to deductively infer that ABC is IC. Whether subtraction actually happened is an empirical question, not a theoretical one. siafu 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Verdicts
  • In my opinion, this is getting close to the true nature of evolution but I think you'll still get disputes over your use of the word "adapt". In verdict 1, I would tweak your first sentence to "An irreducibly complex organ was not actively selected by natural selection, and was not built in any sort of a sequential/linear-like manner." As we discussed above, the theory of evolution by natural selection is not necessarily limited to sequential or linear changes. We also should add "or (c) was built in some other not-yet-discovered manner ..." The fact that we've talked about dual-function and purely random does not logically preclude the possibility of additional mechanisms. Rossami (talk)
  • I'm not sure how to easily amend verdict 2. Any change to the population in response to external stimulus is an "adaptation" regardless of whether the change was incremental, a jump or a transformation of function. If your elephant herd needs an irreducibly complex organ to survive the cold, yes, it needs to get lucky. However, if it needs a reducibly complex organ, it still needs to get lucky. The fact that the necessary change was, in hindsight, incremental was no guarantee that the necessary change would occur in the right individuals. While it's intuitively attractive to say that the odds of achieving the needed incremental change are higher than the odds of achieving the needed jump-change, I don't know that there's any evidence supporting that thought. Rossami (talk)

One quick response before I hit the sheets tonight. When I was talking about "linear/sequential/direct" natural selection I didn't mean to say that it wasn't still based on randomness. I just meant that once you get the necessary/advantageous trait, natural selection holds onto it and then can start waiting for the next advantage. The neutral mutations can go as easily as they come. But I'm pretty sure that the odds of getting the reducible advatange far outweighs the irreducible one. For example, analogous to the elephants in the cold would be the strep bacteria in Augmentin. The Augmentin-resistant strain will pop up if you don't take your medicine doses right. Sure an individual bacteria needs to luckily get the right gene, but the population on the whole will adapt and survive. That's a scientific fact.

Thus, for reducible components, you can exert selective "pressure" on a population to get it to "directly" adapt. You can get the big-beaked finches to thrive if you take away the small-beaked's food and double the big-beaked's rations. This "pressure" is what Darwin noticed and extrapolated into his theory. That was the mechanism that was supposed to solve it all. But with IC adaptations, the pressure isn't there. We can't rely on natural selection to help a species out, if the species needs an IC component. So we are left saying that either these adaptations happened totally randomly, or, as you pointed out, there could be some other unknown mechanism we have yet to discover. Or they were designed. David Bergan 04:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Natural selection is a mechanism for generate an exceedingly high degree of improbability. Nothing is produced by randomness, everything is an adaptation, caused by natural selection. IC is a waffly concept that I think you've shown you can't adequately explain. Now, on group selection, selection basically occurs at the level of the individual. Dunc|☺ 16:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

IC is a waffly concept that I think you've shown you can't adequately explain. Thanks for the unprovoked insult. I don't have any problem with Rossami's "Ann investigates" definition of IC found just under section break 2.

Nothing is produced by randomness I agree that the selection occurs at the individual level through a mutation, but is there anything predicting which individual gets which mutation? If you have a million bacteria and plan to hit it with successive small doses of antibiotics under certain conditions, we know that the population is guaranteed to develop a resistance to that antibiotic. But can any scientist tell us which of the million bacteria is going to be the one that develops the resistance first? Or precisely when? Alternatively, if your population is just one bacteria, is it also guaranteed to develop resistance like the million-bacteria population would? Thus, while a large enough group is statistically guaranteed get the mutation it needs to survive (for simple reducible adaptations) based on the law of large numbers, it is still based on randomness at the level of the individual. Natural selection just tells us that once one bacteria gets the resistance, the population holds onto it.

With IC adaptations, it's still random for the individual, and the law of large numbers still applies; but since NS isn't holding onto each neutral mutation-based component, they're going to come and go. It's like trying to roll all 6's with 10 dice. If you can set the die aside once you roll a 6, it won't take long to get all 10. But if you have to re-roll all 10 dice on each shake (whether you get a 6 or not), you'll be waiting hours/days/weeks before getting your match. David Bergan 05:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition

The definition is too weak, because it only requires complexity that is irreducible in terms of static components. That's irrelevant to evolution, because in biological systems, the component parts evolve together. The only meaningful way irreducible complexity could be demonstrated would be to show mathematically that there exists a system that could only have evolved out of something equally complex. There are no known examples of this, and there likely won't be any until molecular biology becomes a lot more advanced. Peter Grey 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that is true, maybe it isn't. But if it is your opinion, it has no place in the article, as it is thus original research. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

But on the other hand how many definitions of IC systems have we had from Behe now? And the huge advancement of proteomics is revealing no IC systems... Dunc|☺ 7 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

I still have not located the article (still looking, though) where I saw at least 4 different definitions of IC given by Behe and Dembski. However, I have located these, which may help:

• Irreducible Complexity 3 definitions: Behe's original, Dembskis, and Behe's "Evolutionary" definition. From the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.
• ID's irreducible inconsistency revisited a new definition of IC given by Dembski, contradicting his earlier definition, from TalkReason.
• Definitional complexity from EvoWiki.

Which at any rate shows there is some modification of, and disagreement of, the definition of IC. KillerChihuahua 13:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Brought over from ID talk page KillerChihuahua 14:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience"

I see this point was addressed before, apparently without reaching any consensus.

As such irreducible complexity is seen by the supporters of evolutionary theory as an example of creationist pseudoscience, though Behe does not explicitly affirm creationism in his book.

I support evolutionary theory, and I think creationism is pseudoscience. I do not think "irreducible complexity" is pseudoscience, however—it's not science at all. Behe gives a clear and workable definition of irreducible complexity in his book, then goes on to argue that certain parts of living organisms to him appear to be irreducibly complex, then draws conclusions from that.

You can certainly disagree with Behe that there is IC in nature; you can even argue that IC as a concept is meaningless, useless or inherently flawed. But regardless of that, who would believe irreducible complexity itself is science? I don't think even Michael Behe would call irreducible complexity as a concept a scientific theory, no more than vector algebra is one. The sentence is also quite misleading in that Michael Behe himself is a supporter of the evolutionary theory—though he denies evolution can explain the complexities of life, of course.

I think there's a slight confusion of terms here: what opponents would label pseudoscience is not the concept of irreducible complexity, but using that concept to argue that 1. life exhibits irreducible complexity and 2. irreducibly complex things must be designed by (an) intelligent being(s) and therefore 3. life was designed by (an) intelligent being(s)—in short, intelligent design. But what people think of ID is best left to that article.

I don't see any justification for calling IC any sort of science, pseudo- or not. That would be intelligent design. With that in mind, I've edited the last paragraph of the intro. I couldn't see any way to save the last sentence (the "opponents say IC is creationist pseudoscience" angle) so I've removed it. I hope I won't get into trouble with people who think we have to have the word "pseudoscience" in there somewhere, because I can't see any way of getting that in by any other way than shoehorning. 82.92.119.11 12:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

No, see the definition of pseudoscience. Behe believes it is science, many other creationists believe it is science. It is not science. It is creationist pseudoscience. It is based on lies, strawmen and a massive violation of Ockham's Razor. It has not gained acceptance to any degree in the scientific community.

Now, at times even ID proponents will admit that "intelligent design theory" is nonexistent, but at other times they use that phrase and it is true to say that those that follow do erroneously believe it to be science. Furthermore, vector algebra is not a good example because that is based on maths and mathematical theorems. Dunc|☺ 13:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about intelligent design, which is a theory. Irreducible complexity is a concept (this is what I hoped to elucidate with my vector algebra analogy). For an analogy in the realm of science, how about this: an atom, an indivisible entity, is a concept. The theory that all matter is built up from atoms is, well, a theory. You can dispute the validity of the theory without denying that the concept of an indivisible entity is in principle useful. (Later, of course, atoms would be redefined to match new theories, and lose their indivisible status... but that's another issue).

Another example. Is a unicorn pseudoscience? No. The theory that unicorn horns help combat disease is, however. I feel the same relationship is present between irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Please note that my edits did not suddenly vindicate IC as a concept—I merely clarified that the main theory based on IC was disputed by the scientific community. I fail to see why I was reverted. (As an aside, please don't revert articles with rollback. It implies the reverted edits were vandalism.) 82.92.119.11 15:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

119.11 is exactly right. IC is a legit concept. We see IC all the time in the inorganic world (laptops, bicycles, cars, etc.) and it is never considered pseudoscience to apply the label "irreducibly complex" to something like a car. David Bergan 18:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is considered pseudoscience. Irreducible complexity is a useless concept. The only reason for applying it to cars is as a starting point for a false analogy ending at living systems. --Hob Gadling 11:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, fellas, no one ever responded to my arguments under "Justification". That being the case, I intend to make those changes again since there is no logical opposition to them. David Bergan 18:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not true, as anyone can see. I did answer, for example. But you answered to that, and so on, and you were the last to post since I lost patience with you because you don't seem to even try to understand people's arguments. --Hob Gadling 11:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hob, please point out where I failed to understand your side of the argument. Granted, I didn't agree with you in the above discussion, but that does not mean I didn't understand it. David Bergan 14:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I wrote before (15:45, Jun 9, 2005), "The fallacy here is that because of his lack of imagination, the IC proponent doesn't allow for the fact that evolution is also able to take something away, instead of only adding things." After that, you gave an answer that showed you didn't understand what I said. Maybe I was not explicit enough in that sentence but my impression at the time was that you didn't even try. I wrote a new, more explicit explanation of what Behe and you missed. --Hob Gadling 15:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

No-one attempts to apply irreducible complexity to anything other than biochemistry. I think you need to read the articles on theory and theorem where the difference between them is explained. Secondly, just because something is a "concept" does not preclude it from being pseudoscience. Just in case it wasn't clear:

1. IC makes no testable predictions
2. IC is inadequately defined
3. IC is based on a deliberate and deceitful ignorance of previous work on molecular evolution
4. So-called examples have been disproven since our knowledge of proteomics has mushroomed over the past ten years
5. It slices across Ockham's Razor leaving a bloody mess all over the carpet.

And that's talking about the "science" let alone the sociological issues of Behe's friends at the Discovery Institute and the theological implications therein. Dunc|☺ 11:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

No-one attempts to apply irreducible complexity to anything other than biochemistry. - Are you saying that a laptop is not irreducibly complex because it is not biochemical? Because a laptop seems to fit under the definition given on the article page.

IC makes no testable predictions - Neither does clasifying something as a "mammal" or "radioactive". But that doesn't mean that these labels are pseudoscience.

IC is inadequately defined - Huh?

IC is based on a deliberate and deceitful ignorance of previous work on molecular evolution - You seriously think Behe is part of a conspiracy theory?

So-called examples have been disproven since our knowledge of proteomics has mushroomed over the past ten years - By "disproven" do you mean to say that they actually built a flagellum through natural selection? Just curious. Even if they did, how does that translate into the claim that calling my laptop IC is pseudoscience?

It slices across Ockham's Razor leaving a bloody mess all over the carpet. - Ha ha. David Bergan 14:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Applications - Please provide references to show that the concept of IC is being used in computer engineering or any other form of product design. It certainly would be interesting.
2. Testable. (Oh dear) that an organism is a mammal or that an element is radioactive or for that matter anything else in science can be tested predictions. If it's furry and produces milk, it's a mammal.
3. definition - Behe has come up with about three different definitions of IC, basically amounting to saying "an IC system is one that I can recognise"
4. deceitfulness - Behe is a professor and the crap he comes out with is clever crap. Therefore Hanlon's Razor does not apply. He is therefore a willful liar, rather than an ignoramus like most of his creationist followers.
5. The flagellum evolved like many other proteins from a similar protein of a different function that was then co-opted into a new role. We now know this because we've found those other proteins. Evolution does not have a goal per se and it would be extremely difficult to evolve a flagellum in a lab. The rest is an argument from false analogy, as has been previously explained to you.
6. I cannot believe I am feeding the trolls. Dunc|☺ 16:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Application. The application may not be earth-shaking, but applying IC to a laptop is how we can tell that the laptop was designed. Empirically, in the inorganic realm, it fits our observations that "All IC objects are designed." Other applications for this principle could be found in anthropology, forensic sciences, or the answering the question of whether or not ETs exist. If our first probe to Mars found an inorganic IC object, we would likely conclude that non-human intelligence exists.
2. Testable. If it's furry and produces milk, it's a mammal. Exactly, that's what the label is for. Just like me saying, "If it has several parts, each of which are necessary for its function, it's irreducibly complex." The label saves us the effort of rambling off a long description every time we try to refer to something. Testability isn't an issue for IC any more than "mammal".
3. Definition. Is there something wrong with the one quoted on the article page?
4. Deceit. So he is in on a conspiracy? Who else is in on this big clever lie, and why?
5. Flagellum. What makes it difficult to evolve one in a lab? Do you consider a flagellum to be irreducibly complex?
6. Trolls. Sorry that you think I'm trolling... I'm seriously only trying to find the truth. David Bergan 18:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I think you may be confusing "complex" with "irreducibly complex". If it has several parts, each of which is neccessary for function, that's just complexity, not irreducible complexity. The "irreducibility" refers to the idea that it's not possible for such a system to be replaced with a simpler precursor.
2. Testability is always applicable. Just because the label makes it so that one is not at all likely to investigate the statement "Elephants are mammals" does not mean that it would be impossible to do so. One could still in theory find an elephant and examine it and determine whether or not it's a mammal, hence the statement is testable. This is not the case for IC.
3. Applying "complexity" as a criterion for inferring design is ridiculous. Complexity is clearly not a necessary quality of all things "designed"; a triangle drawn on a piece of construction paper by a four year old is "designed" but not at all "complex". The same is true for something like the modern world economy-- it is incredibly complex but not designed by anyone or any group, it's simply emergent from the behavior of humanity.
4. We do not know that laptops are designed because they are complex; we know that laptops are designed because we, as humans, know something about laptops, and even electronics in general, and thus are immediately able to recognize such a thing as a human creation instantly.
5. Behe claims that flagella are IC, it's one of his main examples, hence the reference to it.

The reason that IC is pseudoscience is because it violates the principles of science, not because it's part of a creationist argument (though it is). If we were to accept IC as reality in the biological sciences, for example, every time we found some system that was too complicated for us to imagine it being reduced it would simply bring a halt to research because we would be assuming at that point that it could not be done. Since there's no way to prove that, making the conclusion of IC is not a reasonably deduction and therefore not scientific. siafu 13:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason that IC is pseudoscience is because it violates the principles of science - which principle? IC is merely a label, just like "mammal" or "radioactive". David Bergan 14:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The scientific method. IC is a theoretical possibility, not a specific trait (in fact, as it turns out, almost all of Behe's examples are turning out to be inaccurate). It's a possibility that cannot be proven or tested, like the existence of God(s), not a scientific theory. Hence pseudoscience. siafu 15:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's set aside the pseudoscience and scientific method part for a second. Do you agree with me that IC is a label? Or if you prefer, a categorization? Take all objects in existence and we can separate them into two categories... "Irreducibly complex objects" and "Not irreducibly complex objects". Similarily we can separate all objects in the universe as being either "Radioactive" and "Not radioactive". Or we can separate as "White objects" and "Not white objects"; "Organic" and "Inorganic"; "Visible" and "Invisible"; "Pink Elephants" and "Not Pink Elephants"; "Man-made" and "Not man-made"; etc. David Bergan 16:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I can certainly conceive of such a distinction that would require using "IC" as a category label. I'm not, however, clear as to how that's relevant. siafu 21:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Good. We agree on something. Now do we typically consider labels to be scientific/unscientific? I mean, when you go through the list I rambled off above, did certain ones strike you as scientific labels and others and unscientific ones? David Bergan 22:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it's a label isn't relevant to whether or not it's pseudoscience; it's not just a label but a concept. I'm not sure where you're going with this-- please explain. siafu 22:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

it's not just a label but a concept Well, yes, in the sense that all labels describe a concept. "Radioactive" describes the concept of radioactivity. But the labels themselves don't seem to be either scientific or unscientific unless they are applied to something. For example, there is nothing really scientific or unscientific about saying "this piece of uranium is radioactive." But if I were to say, "Eating uranium is good for you because uranium is radioactive," that would be pseudoscience. In the same way, saying, "my laptop is irreducibly complex" is neither scientific nor unscientific. But once I say, "My laptop was designed, because it is irreducibly complex" THAT could be pseudoscience. David Bergan 03:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there's something very scientific about saying "this piece of uranium is radioactive" because the definition of "radioactive" is very clear and very testable. So too "eating uranium (&c.)" is pseudoscience because it is testable, and testing has demonstrated that it is untrue. This isn't the same as why IC is pseudoscientific; it is so because it can't even be applied to scientific method, which places it in the same category as religion (i.e. accepting it can't be done on any basis but faith). siafu 04:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. Tell me, how do we know that something is radioactive? Then tell me how we know if something is irreducibly complex. And please explain why determining the first is "scientific" and the second is not. David Bergan 15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You can wave a geiger counter at a piece of radioactive material and detect the emission of particles from it (a TEST), but we simply do NOT know if something is irreducibly complex, even if it was made from whole cloth by observed humans (like a laptop). It could be IC, and it also could have been created by the invisible space monkeys; neither assertion can really go any further than that. That's the point of my argument, it's not testable or provable, and in just about every substantive way not meaningful either. siafu 15:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

How about Rossami's definition that just posted above?

• Ann investigates object ABC which performs function Y.
• Ann investigates A, B, C, AB, AC and BC. She determines that no subset of ABC can perform function Y.
• Ann concludes that object ABC is irreducibly complex.

Seems like a testable definition to me. David Bergan 17:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

To me it seems like a conflation of the concepts of complexity and irreducible complexity. siafu 17:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. What does "irreducible complexity" mean to you? Behe meant it as Rossami outlined... that if the function of Y rests on an essential base of components, then it is "irreducible" because to reduce it would remove an essential part. Mere "complexity" on the other hand doesn't require all the parts to function. Adding a cable modem to my laptop increases its complexity, but it can function wihtout the cable modem. Therefore, the modem isn't part of the irreducibly complex core. David Bergan 17:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Taking away the cable modem does, however, cause your laptop to cease functioning as an internet terminal; keep in mind that these "system-level" distinctions are a bit arbitrary. The problem with the definition, from my understanding, is that "reducing" the complexity could also potentially mean replacing ABC with AD, D being a component of not greater complexity than A, B, or C that isn't included in ABC. That would be reduced in complexity as far as I can tell. siafu 18:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

True. Here's a better example than the cable modem: Add a bunny sticker to the cover of your laptop. That increases the complexity of the object (adds something designed), but doesn't impact the functionality of the laptop whatsoever... Therefore it is a totally reducible feature.

Replacing ABC with AD doesn't really have bearing on whether or not ABC is irreducibly complex. The definition of IC is based solely on the object's component subset. Therefore ABC could be IC (if a subset of ABC doesn't function), and AD could be IC (if a subset of AD doesn't function), and ABC could have the same function as AD, and the two are totally unrelated. Behe's example is that a spring-and-hammer mousetrap is IC, and that a box propped up by a stick with a string attached is also an IC mousetrap with the same function (capturing the mouse). David Bergan 13:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Even if you are just placing a bunny sticker on your laptop, there is a still a perspective from which this can be seen to be a new functionality ("lookin' good!"). Not allowing a subtractive process (i.e., sticking only to the ABC subset) is very specifically argument from lack of imagination; there's no reason whatsoever to not include those possibilities. If you're being clearly understood by me now, then the only sense that IC is true is entirely meaningless. siafu 17:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Functionality does get a bit vague if you start bringing in other functions. The point of the bunny sticker was that if your laptop stopped working one day I can guarantee that no technician would ask you to remove it for any reason besides that it is ugly. (Well, maybe if the sticker was really big and you put it on the center of the monitor...) When we keep the perspective focused on "what lets my laptop access wikipedia" the sticker is an additional reducible component. But if we focus on "how to make my laptop impress my girlfriend", then the bunny sticker will go a lot further than showing her you can access wikipedia.

I think I'm just misunderstanding your subtractive process argument. Do you have an example of ABC --> AD (in preferably the inorganic realm) that can help me see your point? David Bergan 16:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Last try: Ossicles. Hammer, anvil, and stirrup are necessary for transporting sound from the eardrum to the inner ear. As soon as one of the three bones is missing, the system does not work anymore. (I don't know if this is really true - let's just assume it since this is just an example.) Then the ossicles are irreducibly complex.

The evolutionary history of the ossicles goes like this:

Fish	Reptile	Mammal
Jaw bone	Jaw bone	Ossicle
Gill	Jaw bone	Jaw bone

That is, the jaw bones of fish were still jaw bones in reptiles, then evolved into ossicles in mammals. Mammal jaw bones were already jaw bones in reptiles (they have more complex jaws), which evolved from parts of the gills.

Thus, we have a possibly irreducibly complex feature that evolved, and we have tons of transitional forms to prove it. --Hob Gadling 17:09, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Then the ossicles are irreducibly complex.—Hob, how would you describe that the jaw bone changed from a single bone to a series of three in a "subtractive process"? I am also interested in your claim that we have tons of transitional forms to prove it. What are they? Where can I see them? Have you a link? John Bizzle 06:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

One, I didn't say it was one single bone turning into three ossicles. There were three jaw bones turning into three ossicles.

Two, for transitional fossils, see [2] (text explaining it can be found at [3], but I, S, and M stands for Incus, Stapes, and Malleus, the ossicles). I needed one minute to find this by googling "ossicles" "evolution". Another good link is [4] --Hob Gadling 08:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Inorganic laptop example: D=plug the laptop into the wall with C=battery, or D=add a wireless card with B&C being the internal modem and cable? Both of which make the configuration more complex, but add redundancy and reliability in changing environments, while not changing the functionality of the system as a terminal to access the internet. ABC works, ABCD works, and maybe ABD or AD works as well. If the only creation mechanisms allowed by IC is addition and creation, (as divined by subtraction to irreducibility), then IC depends on the fallacy of begging the question. 68.10.22.68 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is rapidly devolving into a flame war between various sides. All you need for NPOV is good cites, people. Good luck, everyone, I'm outta here. 82.92.119.11 16:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Back to the Mousetrap

We need to follow this up logically. According to this Web entry: [5], the (spring, baited) mousetrap was invented in essentially its present form by James Henry Atkinson in 1897. We need answers to several questions before we can judge the complexity issue. For one thing, was Atkinson allergic to cats, or did he dislike cats? They are good "mousers" generally. For another, a cat seems less irreducible than a mousetrap; you can spay a cat, bob its tail, or de-claw it (it's then not much good with mice any more, but it's alive), and a cat can function pretty well without one paw, for example. If "irreducible complexity" is the criterion for having been "intelligently designed" then the cat is less likely to have been so designed than the mousetrap. Lastly, if an allergy to or dislike of cats did not do so, what motivated Atkinson? If it was desire for profit, he might have been greedy, a cardinal sin. In that case, by the level of discussion and "reasoning" common to ID people, the Designer may also have been greedy, and planned to sell us all - mice, cats, giraffes, people.... If Atkinson instead had listened to the adage "Build the better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door," we may conclude that at heart he was an attention-getter (possibly co-dependent on his audience), and by the same analogy, the Designer just craved attention. The latter interpretation fits with the belief, common among fundamentalists, that the Designer expects us to frequently offer prayers of thanks and supplication. She or He may also have been co-dependent. To cover that possibility, let's all pray that the Designer goes to a suitable therapist. Carrionluggage 05:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

better definition

The article currently begins

Irreducible complexity is a controversial concept which considers that the generally accepted scientific theory that life evolved through biological evolution by natural selection alone is incomplete and flawed, that it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, and that some additional mechanism is required to explain the origins of life.

I would prefer all articles to begin with some sort of explanation or definition of what it *is*, rather than what it is not, or what it contradicts.

I would prefer that this article begin more like the Flat Earth article -- with a definition that those who believe in it can agree with.

Would it be so wrong to give Behe (or someone else who believes in irreducible complexity) the first paragraph, if we have the entire rest of the article to rebut it?

Michael J. Behe writes:

In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:

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.

A system which meets Darwin's criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. ... At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems.

I think this would work better as the first paragraph defining "irreducible complexity", if it were trimmed down some more. OK? --DavidCary 03:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be considerably worse. A quote is not a summary of the article content. Flat earth does not begin with a convoluted quote from "Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes." One puppy's opnion. KillerChihuahua 12:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A summary of the article content would go against wikipedia guidelines, which specifically state "Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points." The Flat Earth article begins with a definition. The Phlogiston theory article begins with the definition (plus the important point that it is "obsolete"): The phlogiston theory is an obsolete scientific theory of combustion.

Please forgive me for following Wikipedia guidelines and unilaterally adding a definition to the beginning of the article. --DavidCary 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

David's action seems, to at least some degree, reasonable. The introduction (as it is now) does not accurately describe the concept of irreducible complexity. --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Cull

This article is of low quality. It has been a magnet for original research.

I have struck lots of this out at Talk:Irreducible complexity/Cull.

I am going to remove these from the article. This is not vandalism.

They are wrong mostly because IC as defined by Behe doesn't include several examples listed, primarily because Behe only thinks IC applies to biochemical systems. On the other hand, examples cited by Behe are ignored and these will need to be addressed.

But the article needs to be burnt before it is regrown. — Dunc|☺ 16:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Great job, Dunc - this article was becoming more of a forum of OR than an encyclopedia article. I applaud your boldness, it was very much needed. KillerChihuahua 17:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you might have cut too far in a couple of places. For example, you completely removed the example of the Bombardier Beetle. On the /Cull page, you comment that "Behe doesn't claim that this is IC, it's more Gish's thing". I don't disagree but as you made so clear in the improved Definitions section, more than just Michael Behe now lay claim to the concept of irreducible complexity. Even if Behe isn't doing it, others are using Gish's example and arguments to attempt to support the concept of irreducible complexity. See some of these examples. (Please remember to ignore the Wikipedia clones.) Rossami (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The response of the YECists to DBB was to say "but we've been saying this for the past thirty years, but there is more evidence than what you've said and by reducing God this level you've sold out". I think it best mentioned in that context of the general response and similarity to earlier arguments. — Dunc|☺ 23:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Acronyms demystified: YEC = Young Earth creationism/ist, DBB = Darwin's Black Box - Guettarda 01:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. FWIW I don't like Google as a source so much because although the leaders of the creationist movements can say really dumb things, their supporters are capable of saying things that are infinitely dumber. So it's better if something comes from a Gish or a Behe rather than a Bloggs. — Dunc|☺ 09:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I also applaud your boldness, Dunc. --DavidCary 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article

I've moved the following empty sections here from the article until someone has content for them. Empty sections are not even stubs.

AMP pathway

FeloniousMonk 17:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Questionable Claims

I thought my comments had removed the questionable content, but apparently they just relocated it. (The following was first presented in the intelligent design article; it now seems appropriate to produce here.)

It's unclear if Ludwig von Bertalanffy actually came up with the term irreducible complexity (at least, the term as Behe uses it). No reference is given regarding this, and the Wikipedia article does not mention it (though it does mention general systems theory). A citation may be appropriate to verify the claim's accuracy.

The claim, "Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, does not recount the history of his irreducible complexity argument, but rather gives the impression that there is something new" seems questionable. No reference or quote is given. The idea that he "gives the impression" of something "new" is not justified, and almost seems like an attempt to insinuate deception on Behe's part. Moreover, it is demonstrably false. On page 212 Behe credits Paley for using the concept of irreducible complexity.

Additionally, the definition of "irreducible complexity" provided in the introduction is inaccurate. A far more accurate description of irreducible complexity below:

Irreducibly complex refers to a system composed of various interconnecting parts that contribute to some basic function, whereby the removal of any of these components causes the system to stop functioning.

The present introduction presents a highly inaccurate description of the concept of irreducible complexity. I suggest it be changed. (Note: if anyone doubts the veracity of my definition, I'll be happy to quote Behe himself.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, no objections. Should I go ahead and make the revisions then? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I have made the edits. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And I've reverted them. Your objections are vague and baseless yet again. Please find a more constructive way to contribute to the project than by once again seeking to delete well sourced content in your campaign of promoting your pov and personal original research. FeloniousMonk 21:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What personal POV? What original research have I introduced? And what well-sourced material? I eliminated the claims regarding Ludwig von Bertalanffy precisely because they were not well-sourced. According to Wikipedia policy, in this instance you are required to cite an adequate source regarding this disputed claim. You have not done so. Additionally, you have reinserted the questionable and disproven claim "Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, does not recount the history of his irreducible complexity argument, but rather gives the impression that there is something new when he posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for the emergence of some complex biochemical cellular systems." As I pointed out earlier, this is demonstrably false on page 212 of that very book. So I shall revert it back to its previous form. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You've been promoting your personal interpretation of IC and intelligent design since you've arrived at the project, and been very disruptive in the process as editors at Intelligent design, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and Ontological argument articles will attest. Your original research is available for all to see at [6]. How much of what is found there that can be mapped to your attempted contributions to Wikipedia I leave for other editors to discover on their own.

Your objections are vague and baseless. Behe saying that Paley was using IC is not the same thing as Paley using IC. FeloniousMonk 22:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My objections are baseless? Let's take a look at Wikipedial policy regarding citations:

Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.

This is the basis for my objection and my edit. You have been disruptive in ignoring this policy and making the reversions without citing your sources. And what personal interpretation of IC are you talking about? I cited Behe's interpretation, not my own. You have no basis for your original research objection.

Have I ever come up with original ideas? I have. And you can find some of them at my website. Nonetheless, I have not introduced any of those original ideas here. I actually cited a source, whereas you Felonious did not. You claim, "Behe saying that Paley was using IC is not the same thing as Paley using IC." Even if that were true (and we can ignore the fact that Behe quoted Paley for now), that doesn't change the fact that the following claim:

Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, does not recount the history of his irreducible complexity argument, but rather gives the impression that there is something new when he posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for the emergence of some complex biochemical cellular systems.

Is false. Behe does not give that impression at all. He flatly contradicts it is "something new" by attributing it to William Paley. You ignored what I cited and reinserted the disproven claim anyway.

Regarding your last remark, I have tried to make reforms on intelligent design (in trying to remove original research there) and in the second law of thermodynamics (trying to remove straw men). And if trying to get the pages conform to Wikipedia policy is disruptive, then I'm guilty. But even more so is FeloniousMonk with his reckless disregard for Wikipedia policy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this very routine with you before at Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Second law of thermodynamics/creationism and Talk:Ontological argument. And at each place you've significantly failed to find enough support for your edits to make consensus, and in the process caused much disruption, including something like 3 RFMs. The community has a limited amount of patience, and you've burned up far too much good will to be considered credible.

You're woefully ill-informed if you think that IC did not come from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, and Behe does not credit von Bertalanffy for it anywhere in Darwin's Black Box. FeloniousMonk 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did (eventually) succeed in removing some original research from intelligent design and the straw men from second law of thermodynamics. You say I am "woefully ill-informed" but if that is true cite your sources! Behe did not credit von Bertalanffy true but it has not been determined that von Bertalanffy came up with the term (at least as Behe uses it). If I am wrong, again please cite your sources. And it still does not change the fact that Behe does not give the impression of "something new" because he attributes the concept to William Paley.

What's worse, is that you have once again ignored Wikipedia policy regarding citing sources. To quote, "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor [emphasis mine]." That is why I, as an editor, removed the challenged material. You have no basis for your reverts. I have been forced to resort to requests for mediation because of your disruptiveness, and I might have to do so again if this keeps up. For now, I will simply make an RfC regarding the challenged material. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, you removed the RfC I made. This is very disruptive. I will reinsert the RfC, but please don't remove it again. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick check of your contribution history will tell them all they need to know about disruption. You've wasted far too much time of good faith contributors with your specious objections, two and half pages worth now archived at Talk:Intelligent design alone. I'm not about to stand idly by and let you do that here as well. FeloniousMonk 23:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you're going to ignore Wikipedia policy and revert any of my attempts to remove the uncited challenged material aren't you? FeloniousMonk, given what we've seen here today who is the disruptive one? Who has ignored Wikipedia policy? Who is the one who removed the RfC?

FeloniousMonk, you have removed the RfC again. This is very disruptive. Please do not do this again. (Yes you have rewritten the passage, but you still credit Ludwig von Bertalanffy with the term without providing a citation.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bertalanffy

Comment: It seems clear Bertalanffy came up with the concept - any objections to replacing term (which may be a source of argument anyway due to translation issues) with concept? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it hasn't even been confirmed that he came up with the concept, or if he did a cited quote should be provided (and so far no such thing has been provided). --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components."

Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Problems of Life, 1952, Pg. 148 KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not in dispute that Bertalanffy applied the concept of systems to biology before Behe did, but we're talking about irreducible complexity here. Let's not forget what Behe's irreducible complexity is (Darwin's Black Box p. 39):

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interconnecting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Do we ever see Bertalanffy ever using this term as the as the entry claims? Do we even see him use the concept at all? I've read the web pages and I have yet to find it. Perhaps if a quote can be provided... --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is perhaps something else wrong with "It seems clear Bertalanffy came up with the concept." Bertalanffy was a 20th century biologist. Behe seems to attribute the idea of irreducible complexity to William Paley--the 18th century theologian--on p. 212 of Darwin's Black Box suggesting it was in Paley’s Natural Theology. On pp. 1-2 of Paley’s book we find the following (the famous watchmaker analogy):

For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.

To the very least it comes very close to the concept of irreducible complexity. If it does match Behe’s concept closely enough, and since Paley died well before Bertalanffy was born, it cannot have been Bertalanffy who came up with the concept. I doubt you'll be able to find a quote from Bertalanffy that more closely matches the idea of irreducible complexity than what Paley said. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's another:

Ginsborg, Hannah "Two Kinds of Mechanical Inexplicability in Kant and Aristotle"

Journal of the History of Philosophy - Volume 42, Number 1, January 2004, pp. 33-65

The Johns Hopkins University Press

"Ludwig von Bertalanffy also invokes the argument that, if organisms are machines, then they require an engineer (Modern Theories of Development, J.H. Woodger,trans. [first published 1933, reprint New York: Harper, 1962], 36,40). KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a much better quote in Architecture of Complexity but I don't have a copy - would anyone who does please take a look? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

More:

The biologist and epistemologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy provided the first theoretical construction of the complex organisation of living systems [25]. Like other organic biologists, he firmly believed that to understand biological phenomena, new modes of thought that went beyond the traditional methods of the physical sciences were required [26,27]. According to Bertalanffy, living beings should be considered as complex systems with specific activities to which the principles of the thermodynamics of "closed" systems studied by physicists do not apply. Unlike closed systems (in which a state of equilibrium is established), open systems remain in a stationary state far from equilibrium and are characterised by the input and output of matter, energy and information [28].

From PubMed, of all places - wonderful site. [7] KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ludwig von Bertalanffy viewed biological structures as systems. But again, we still don't see him use the concept or term "irreducible complexity." It is not surprising that some biologist viewed complex biological structures as "systems," but what we're searching for is irreducible complexity, remember? --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to get sarcastic - I suggested we replace term with concept, which means we are looking for the concept not the exact words, remember? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No doubt you'll need to provide cite after cite after cite if Tisthammer's previous behaviour is any indication. Yes, it is quite clear that Bertalanffy and GST introduced the concept in the 1940's and 1950's, and I have little doubt that given Behe's age and field of study he read about GST. As for Wade's snippy snotiness, what were you expecting, civility? Jim62sch 23:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If the cite doesn't establish what it's supposed to establish, then yes. So far, we have established that Ludwig von Bertalanffy viewed biological structures as complex systems, but none of the quotes establish the idea of irreducible complexity (i.e. that the removal of any component of a certain biological system causes it to stop functioning). --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You accused me of "snippy snotiness"? Let's all try to refrain from personal attacks okay? --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

First, what makes you think I was being sarcastic KC? Second, yes I remember your suggestion of replacing "term" with "concept." Do you remember what I said in the bolded worlds?

"we still don't see him use the CONCEPT or term "irreducible complexity." [emphasis added]

The Ludwig von Bertalanffy quotes given so far do not express the Behe's concept irreducible complexity. Nowhere does Bertalanffy describe any biological system in which the removal of any one of the various components prevents the system from functioning. The quotes establish that Bertalanffy treats biological structures as complex systems, but little else. Let’s all try to use some common sense here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

See, KC, I told you so. Common sense, applied vigorously to analysis of the provided texts, certainly sounds like a good idea to me. Jim62sch 02:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Paradox re evolution and morality

Evolution according to Darwin and Dawkins is blind, thoughtless and heartless. The expression "dog eats dog" comes to mind. Assuming that evolution is "true", paradoxically, this creates a need for religion and laws of morality and good governance, etc., to create a world that does not have for humans that "dog eat dog" character mentioned earlier.

Tabletop 11:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really - altruism toward kin, etc., are compatible with evolutionary models. Guettarda 05:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I'd also refer you to Symbiosys and the thoughts of Lynn Margulis.--ghost 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If a species' goal is to survive, "dog eat dog" would hardly be a positive step in that direction. Jim62sch 02:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Tisthammerw's edit

I don't understand the removal of the history of the term. Could you please explain the edit?--ghost 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned it here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Responses to RfC

Everything in Wikipedia should be verifyable by sources. This is especially important if an author is cited. So if the term irreducible complexity is attributed to Bertalanffy, then a verbatim quote should be given, preferable in the article, but at least in the talk page. If no quote cannot be given, then the attribution should be removed.

I give one example here: The phrase 'oida oti ouden oida' 'I know that I know nothing' is attributed to Socrates. Looking up the original source, one finds:

• 'I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either. I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either.'[8].

So either Socrates never said "I know that I know nothing", or if he said it, it is not documented. He said something similar, though, in the context of a court hearing.

Andreas 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC) amended 03:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

And what is the semantic difference between 'oida oti ouden oida' and 'I do not know anything, do not think I do either.', absent the Greek for the second quote? Given that the second quote is a translation, I'd really like to see the original. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but the text (cite) might be nice. Jim62sch 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you click on the link after the English text and then on Greek, you get: τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι: κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ' οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι. ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι [9] So you should find the German original of the Bertalanffy quote before mentioning it in the article. Andreas 03:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Andreas, thanks -- I missed the link (BTW, Perseus is an excellent tool for both Latin and Greek. I tend to use it a lot when looking for original quotes in either language). As for Bertalanffy, I have had nothing to do with that assertion, although I agree with you that the German version would be a great help. Of course German, like Greek, can be one of the harder languages from which to translate given that many words have a sense that cannot be adequately captured in many other languages without a long definition -- for example Zeitgeist and Kultur in German are frequently poorly translated, and the differences in the four Greek words (agape, philios, eros and praxis) that are equally translated into English as "love" are never truly captured. Jim62sch 11:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The content tisthammerw (Wade) objects to came to be in this article via a content move from the intelligent design article by User:DavidCary on 15 December [10]. It was first added to the ID article 6 October by User:192.80.55.74 [11]. I've left a message with User:192.80.55.74 to add a cite or clarify the content so one isn't needed. FeloniousMonk 07:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We cannot wait until an unsourced information is confirmed. It is the other way round: the information has to be removed immediately until the sources have been found. I do not do it myself now only because this is a RfC and we have to wait for some time until more opinions (hopefully) come in. Andreas 14:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This not the quote, but it does point to an earlier version of irreducible complexity: ""The analytic, mechanistic, one-way causal paradigm of classical science" (Bertalanffy, 1968a, p. xxi), as Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy describes it, assumes that reality can be quantifiably analyzed; that a whole can be understood in terms of its parts; and that the nature and function of a substance or an organism can be comprehended by reducing it to its material, externally observable components. " bartalanffy (duh, forgot to sign) Jim62sch 20:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's more: more Jim62sch 20:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not in dispute that Bertalanffy applied the concept of systems to biology before Behe did, but we're talking about irreducible complexity here. Let's not forget what Behe's irreducible complexity is (Darwin's Black Box p. 39):

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interconnecting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Do we ever see Bertalanffy use this term as the as the entry claims? Do we ever see him use the concept at all? I've read the web pages and I have yet to find it. Perhaps if a quote can be provided... --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Bertalanffy coined the term or Behe's idea first, it says "The concept of IC comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist who believed that complex systems must be examined as complete, irreducible systems in order to understand how they worked." which exactly sums up Bertalanffy's concept. Read some GST textbooks if you're not getting it. Behe merely took that notion, that complex systems must be examined as complete, irreducible systems in order to understand how they work, and spun his idea IC out of it. Which brings us to a point not covered in the article but should be, that the 'irreducible complexity' was in circulation long before Behe started using it. This should be mentioned somewhere. FeloniousMonk 06:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That explanation has been offered to, and rejected by, Tisthammer before. Bottom line here, is that FM is accurate in what he said. Furthermore, I should like to point out that in science there are very rarely any truly new "out-of-the-blue" ideas, rather science tends to build upon past experience and theories. Thus, the mention of Behe beginning with GST theories to develop IC should not be seen by one as a negative, but rather as "proof" that Behe was following in Science's rich tradition. --[was written unsigned by Jim62sch on 09:20, January 21, 2006]

I don't really care whether or not Behe was following in "Science's rich tradition," I'm more concerned about the required citations and the accurate reporting of facts. That said, there is so far no evidence that Behe began with GST theories to develop irreducible complexity. And even if he did, the claim that the concept of irreducible complexity (whereby a system ceases to function if any of the various components are removed) came from Bertalanffy appears to be false given the lack of any citations (despite them being requested a month ago) to the contrary. In any case, the claim that the concept came from Bertalanffy should be removed under Wikipedia policy because there are no citations to support this challenged material. --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, you said "The article doesn't say that Bertalanffy coined the term" but apparently you didn't bother to check what the article said at the time I claimed otherwise. At 16:47 of January 2006:

The term [irreducible complexity] comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist...

Now the article claims that the concept originated with Bertalanffy. The problem is that we still don't have any citation to support the claim. It has been confirmed that Bertalanffy viewed biological structures as complex systems, but nowhere do we see him describe a complex system that ceases to function if any of the various components were removed (which is the concept of irreducible complexity). So far, Behe's quote of Paley seems to far more closely resemble the concept of irreducible complexity. On pp. 1-2 of Paley’s Natural Theology we find the following (the famous watchmaker analogy):

For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.

Behe quoted Paley in Darwin's Black Box (see p. 212). If anything, it seems that the concept comes from Paley--the 18th century theologian--not the 20th century biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy.

So can we remove the uncited challenged material from the entry now in accordance with Wikipedia policy? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the consensus of the RfC seems to be that a citation is required for this challenged material. Since none has been provided, I am removing it under WP:CITE. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Typical. Reading one section of the discussion, you may be able to get away with saying that. But reading the entire discussion, starting with it's beginning here, you'll see that consensus was that a cite was not needed. FeloniousMonk 19:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Typical, ignoring Wikipedia policy. Even if there were consensus that a cite is not needed for this challenged material (and so far the only person to make a clear claim for that is you), it is Wikipedia policy to provide citations here. I can quote it again if you like:

Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. [emphasis mine]

So even if you rounded up some of your friends to decide that "We don't need no stinkin' citations" it would be irrelevant, since that doesn't change Wikipedia policy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A splendid justification for ignoring WP:CON. Good work. Now you just have to show that your objections to the content are not another one of your many tendentious and mendacious (and always ultimately rejected) objections and you'll be set. WP:V assumes the good faith of the person raising the objection, something that your history at Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Second law of thermodynamics/creationism, Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, and Talk:Ontological argument calls into question. FeloniousMonk 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A poor justification for ignoring WP:CITE. Bad work. My objections are not always "ultimately rejected." As I have pointed out before, I did for instance successfully remove the straw man from the second law of thermodynamics entry (for more on that, see this talk section). Ultimately, my removal of the straw man resulted in the removal of the entire section. I've also had some (albeit not total) success regarding the apparent original research in the intelligent design entry (see this talk section and also this one). I fail to see why trying to get articles abide by Wikipedia policy puts into question my good faith.

Speaking of good faith, you yourself seem to be questionable by continuing to ignore clear and explicit Wikipedia policy regarding citations. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Regular contributors at those articles have a very different take on the value of your "contributions" in "getting articles abide by Wikipedia policy" than what you choose to present here.

"I fail to see why trying to get articles abide by Wikipedia policy puts into question my good faith." Hmmm, a history of bowdlerizing and pro-ID pov campaigning just might have something to do with it... FeloniousMonk 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You yourself are guilty of bowdlerizing Felonious with your anti-ID campaigning (note, the "regular contributors" you refer to also tend to be anti-ID; and see below regarding consensus versus WP:CITE). Am I an ID adherent? When it comes to abiogenesis, yes. With Behe and his irreducible complexity I am an agnostic. But that doesn’t mean I’m happy with inserting questionable and uncited claims against him. You of course are anti-ID. Biases are perhaps unavoidable. But that doesn't mean either of us should ignore Wikipedia policy. The difference between you and me is that I make objections and improvements based on Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:CITE), whereas you Felonious ignore Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:CITE) for your own position, as this instance clearly demonstrates. You try to cite WP:CON (even if no consensus exists) to override things like WP:CITE and WP:NOR despite the fact that WP:CON says

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy).

And what I said happens to be correct. Even if you rounded up some of your friends to decide that "We don't need no stinkin' citations" it would be irrelevant, since that doesn't change Wikipedia policy that citations are required. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk's cheap here, Wade. It's history that counts, and yours says a lot more about you than I could. FeloniousMonk 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, talk is cheap here. It's Wikipedia policy that counts, and that says more about you than I could. From WP:CITE

Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. [emphasis mine]

Speaking of history, who is the one who has been ignoring Wikipedia policy? Who is the one who has been fighting all attempts to remove the challenged, unsourced material? --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Who would want credit for a worthless idea?

My, my, all this fuss and furor over a worthless concept.Carrionluggage 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I still think it's important to get the facts right and stick by Wikipedia policy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, Carrion, even those who believed that the earth was flat felt that their idea had some merit. Jim62sch 23:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

5.5 God and Irreducible Complexity

I suggest this subsection to be removed, because it's simplistic, is out of context, and unclear. It should be either rewritten, explaining its role in the issue and its conclusion or be removed. It seems to be a philosophical issue related to God paradoxes and theodicy, and in that case it is not a directly related topic and would require a much longer discussion.

Rend 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Behe himself says that designing life (as for irreducibly complex systems) requires a lot of intelligence but not the supernatural, and thus the section appears to be rather out of place. As Rend said, it seems to be a philosophical issue related to God paradoxes and theodicy. Perhaps more applicably, this argument smells suspiciously of original research. I suggest this challenged material be removed, especially if no citation can be provided of a leading ID opponent making this argument. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't say. What a surprise... FeloniousMonk 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I do tend to be strict about citations and original research. But there appears to be no reason to think that Rend’s concerns are unjustified. Even if we throw out Wikipeida policy regarding citations and original research, the subsection does seem out of place here, particularly given Behe's views regarding irreducible complexity and the supernatural. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)