Irreducible Complexity - If you believe this, what's your main example?

[keith99]

The problem with irreducible complexity is that it doesn't preclude evolution: there are a number of biological systems that are both irreducibly complex, and evolve-able (the bacterial flagella, for instance).

No,no,no. You are getting it all wrong and following others who are missing the terms entirely. Bacterial flagella are NOT an example of irreducable complexity, though they have been claimed as such by creationists.

Of course I should have expected this thread would go the way it does, since the OP made a simple and typical creationist mistake in the original post. If such a case were found it would shatter evolutionary theory, but it would NOT prove creationism as claimed. Disproving one idea does not prove any other idea.

 

[juvenissun]

The difference is that the current KNOWN data shows that biological systems are not irreducible complex at all.

To make claims of proof for something because of the UNknown is preposterous. The very definition of unknown is "not within the range of one's knowledge or understanding".

- Ectezus

How would you know that something is unknown?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

How would you know that something is unknown?

Huh?

 

[LittleNipper]

No,no,no. You are getting it all wrong and following others who are missing the terms entirely. Bacterial flagella are NOT an example of irreducable complexity, though they have been claimed as such by creationists.

Of course I should have expected this thread would go the way it does, since the OP made a simple and typical creationist mistake in the original post. If such a case were found it would shatter evolutionary theory, but it would NOT prove creationism as claimed. Disproving one idea does not prove any other idea.

Disproving an idea that is widely held, underminds the propensity to be so gullible in the future. It does; however, narrow the playing field of alternative explanations...

 

[Danyc]

How would you know that something is unknown?

By not knowing it.

 

[Danyc]

Disproving an idea that is widely held, underminds the propensity to be so gullible in the future. It does; however, narrow the playing field of alternative explanations...

Nipper, you're "playing field" could be so narrow as to only include Creationism, and it still wouldn't make any difference.

The theory will be accepted when evidence supports it. No evidence supports Creationism. All battling against evolution is a pointless endeavor; disproving evolution will not prove creationism, or give it any sort of advantage at all. Scientists will still not accept it, because there is no evidence to back it up.

If we had to sit here for another 100 years after having evolution disproven, and be without another theory for the diversity if life, so be it. It doesn't matter. Creationism would not be accepted.

 

[MoonLancer]

What is the difference between unknown and irreducible complexity?

considering at its heart, id is an argument from ignorance and ignorance comes from something that is not known...

 

[MoonLancer]

okay, let's get to the heart of the issue. what evidence do you have to back up that systems always existed?

that's not a heart of the issue. The op asks for something, You respond, but make the declaimer that ID is not science. fair enough, but the ID movement is a movement that is trying to illegitimately become apart of scientific community to dismantle it from within. However i think i can safely say this movement has been squashed.

But back on track, op asks for something, you respond without evidence. You claim that something along the lines to be providing truth, fact, evidence, whatever, I show you that a statement opposite to yours holds as much weight, because you are simply making an assertion. You now wish me to come up with evidence for this. I'm sorry, but you made the claim that ID is valid and true in some way.

If i entered a thread that asked for evidence of the universe forming naturally, and i wished to defend this, i would be responsible for the evidence, NOT the person who showed me that all i was making was an assertive statement without anything else. That would be me shifting the burden of proof, which is what your doing this moment.

by whom?

link

give it time. it took a long time to overcome the religious influence that kept geocentrism around for so long. I believe the same will happen with ID, and the stink of the the creation movement will be removed from ID, and pure philosophy that ID actually contains will be respected.

I don't think so. Geocentrism was an idea that came from religion, as ID comes from religion.

Its Creationisum in another package, with the specific theology taken out, But you wont find many other people besides christains promoting ID. This is because its religion and Christianity in disguise. it is the movement talked about in the above link. Its specifically being used to confuse people what science is.

ps: i don't think i could explain the big bang to you in a satisfactory way, But i do know enough about evolution, (which is what ID is supposed to counter anyway) and I CAN show that evolution is testable and 100% natural.

 

[Chalnoth]

The theory will be accepted when evidence supports it. No evidence supports Creationism. All battling against evolution is a pointless endeavor; disproving evolution will not prove creationism, or give it any sort of advantage at all. Scientists will still not accept it, because there is no evidence to back it up.

Well, to be fair, it's only a pointless endeavor as far as scientists and others who understand science are concerned. The strategy is actually working pretty well among many credulous Christians and Muslims, including entirely too many politicians.

 

[juvenissun]

considering at its heart, id is an argument from ignorance and ignorance comes from something that is not known...

So that "something" is irreducibly complex.

 

[GhostSlug]

Irreducible complexity has its own logical flaw:

If something is irreducibly complex, it requires a designer.
The designer is irreducibly complex to have the intelligence to design.

If the designer is irreducibly complex and does not have a designer.
Therefore irreducible complexity does not require a designer, pretty much nullifying the concept of irreducible complexity.

 

[Ectezus]

So that "something" is irreducibly complex.

Juvenissun, please clarify, do you honestly think that the unknown (ie: that what we have no knowledge of) is good evidence for a theory?

- Ectezus

 

[shinbits]

Irreducible complexity has its own logical flaw:

If something is irreducibly complex, it requires a designer.
The designer is irreducibly complex to have the intelligence to design.

If the designer is irreducibly complex and does not have a designer.
Therefore irreducible complexity does not require a designer, pretty much nullifying the concept of irreducible complexity.

not so. there's no reason why the designer must be complex.

 

[GhostSlug]

But if the designer is an "intelligent" being so often used in the field called "Intelligent Design" it must be complex to have intelligence.

 

[Chalnoth]

not so. there's no reason why the designer must be complex.

But a complex designer is precisely what is being proposed, because the designer is proposed as having super-human intellect.

 

[Ectezus]

not so. there's no reason why the designer must be complex.

What are you saying Shinbits, that something simple can give rise to something more complex?
Sounds like evolution to me lol.

I guess if you make that assumption you can refute GhostSlugs comment.
If you however DO think your god is complex then the whole Irreducible Complexity argument shoots itself in the foot big time.

If god is irreducible complex and doesn't need a designer himself then following that logic neither do irreducible complex systems (if we ever find them) need to have a designer aswell.

Either way, you're screwed.
I await your answer.

- Ectezus

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun, please clarify, do you honestly think that the unknown (ie: that what we have no knowledge of) is good evidence for a theory?

- Ectezus

I guess you are not thinking. It is not good.

Unknown means that one tried everything and every way to know, but still can not know.

What does one do when he is trying to know something? Let me tell you, it is called doing research/experiment.

Can you complete the rest of the sentence now?

 

[Chalnoth]

I guess you are not thinking. It is not good.

Unknown means that one tried everything and every way to know, but still can not know.

Oh, well, when we try in earnest, we've always been able to find the answers. Or, at the very least, plausible explanations that may or may not be correct. Sometimes it's a bit more difficult to nail it down to which one is correct. And a plausible explanation is all we need to blow irreducible complexity out of the water:

Because the idea of inferring ID through irreducible complexity means that the supposition is that physical system X cannot be explained through evolution, so merely presenting a plausible explanation demonstrates this assertion false.

 

[Ectezus]

Unknown means that one tried everything and every way to know, but still can not know.

What does one do when he is trying to know something? Let me tell you, it is called doing research/experiment.

Doing research and experiments is great! The thing however is that you do this research BEFORE MAKING CONCLUSIONS!

Scientists start with evidence and come up with a theory to explain the evidence.
Creationists on the other hand start with the conclusion (god excists) and try to come up with evidence for it.
The complete contradiction between this and that some people actually consider this normal is mindboggling.

As for my question Juvenissun, you still didn't answer it.
If you want to redefine the definition of unknown to: "We tried really hard to explain but couldn't yet" I'm okey with that.
Now, using that definition, do you honestly think that the unknown is good evidence for a theory?

I await your reply.

- Ectezus

 

[Chalnoth]

Doing research and experiments is great! The thing however is that you do this research BEFORE MAKING CONCLUSIONS!

Actually, this isn't really necessary. In fact, it can actually be helpful to make conclusions before doing the research. The important point is not that you haven't come to some conclusion or other, but instead that you consider any such conclusions to be tentative based upon the evidence, and are perfectly willing to change those conclusions.

There is always the difficulty of confirmation bias, but this is why we have independent verification of results, and why all good scientists don't trust their own conclusions that much.

It's not all that feasible for us as humans to always refrain from coming to conclusions before all the evidence is in, due to our own foibles. In some cases it can even be helpful. It's particularly helpful, for instance, in that if you really believe something is true, but don't have the evidence to show it's true, that belief can be a powerful driving force in doing the work to demonstrate whether or not it is true. After all, if we stop believing a certain theory or experimental result we're working on is true, then we're more likely to get discouraged and stopping our work on that subject to do something else.

But these tentative conclusions are completely worthless if they prevent us from paying attention when the evidence shows our original conclusions to be false. Sadly it's not all that uncommon for scientists who have done some good work to get overly-attached to a faulty hypothesis and basically just go off the deep end into pseudo science as a result. Halton Arp would be one prominent example in astronomy/cosmology.