Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations. The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large, which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved, and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity. In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

Read more about Irreducible Complexity:  Definitions, Stated Examples, Response of The Scientific Community, Irreducible Complexity in The Dover Trial

Other articles related to "irreducible complexity, complexity, irreducible":

Irreducible Complexity in The Dover Trial
... District, Judge Jones specifically singled out Behe and irreducible complexity "Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity ... could have evolved through natural means." (Page 74) "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional ... Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75) "As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against ...
Creationist Objections To Evolution - Impossibility - Creation of Complex Structures
... Further information Irreducible complexity "Living things have fantastically intricate features-at the anatomical, cellular, and molecular levels-that could not function if they were any less ... Creationist claims have persisted that such complexity evolving without a designer is inconceivable, however, and this objection to evolution has been refined in recent years as the more sophisticated irreducible ... Irreducible complexity is the idea that certain biological systems cannot be broken down into their constituent parts and remain functional, and therefore that they could not have evolved ...
Michael Behe - Court Cases - Dover Testimony
... further undermine Behe's statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design ... find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community ... Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense ...
Teleological Argument - History - Creation Science and Intelligent Design
... introduced concepts central to intelligent design, including irreducible complexity (a variant of the watchmaker analogy) and specified complexity (closely ... uses the analogy of a mousetrap to propose irreducible complexity if a mousetrap loses just one of its parts, it can no longer function as a mousetrap ... He argues that irreducible complexity in an object guarantees the presence of intelligent design ...
David Snoke - Behe and Snoke (2004)
... Behe has stated that the results of the paper support his notion of irreducible complexity, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed ... published version did not address the concept directly according to Behe, all references to irreducible complexity were eliminated prior to the paper. 7, 2005, Behe described the paper in presenting arguments for irreducible complexity in his testimony at the Kansas evolution hearings ...

Famous quotes containing the words complexity and/or irreducible:

    The price we pay for the complexity of life is too high. When you think of all the effort you have to put in—telephonic, technological and relational—to alter even the slightest bit of behaviour in this strange world we call social life, you are left pining for the straightforwardness of primitive peoples and their physical work.
    Jean Baudrillard (b. 1929)

    If an irreducible distinction between theatre and cinema does exist, it may be this: Theatre is confined to a logical or continuous use of space. Cinema ... has access to an alogical or discontinuous use of space.
    Susan Sontag (b. 1933)