Irreducible complexity: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:24, 1 April 2016

Revision as of 16:36, 2 April 2016

Line 2:

{{Intelligent Design}}

'''Irreducible complexity''' ('''IC''') is a [[pseudosciencescience|pseudoscientificscientific]] argument that certain [[biological system]]s cannot [[evolution|evolve]] by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through [[natural selection]].<ref>*{{cite book |last= Forrest |first= Barbara |author-link= Barbara Forrest |url= http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |format= PDF |title= Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy |date= May 2007 |publisher= Center for Inquiry, Inc. |place= Washington, D.C. |accessdate= 2007-08-22 |ref= harv}}.

*{{cite book |last= Smith |first= Jonathan C. |title= Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit |page= 307 |isbn= 1-40518-122-2 |ref= harv}}

*{{cite book |last= Shermer |first= Michael |title= The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience |publisher= ABC-CLIO |___location= Santa Barbara |year= 2002 |isbn= 1-57607-653-9 |page= 450 |ref= harv}}

*{{cite book |last= Shulman |first= Seth |title= Undermining Science |publisher= University of California Press |___location= Berkeley |year= 2008 |isbn= 0-520-25626-3 |page=139}}

*{{cite book |last= Pigliucci |first= Massimo |title= Nonsense on Stilts |publisher= University of Chicago Press |___location= Chicago |year= 2010 |isbn= 0-226-66786-3 |pages=177, 180–183}}</ref> Central to the [[creationism|creationist]] concept of [[intelligent design]], IC is rejected by many in the [[scientific community]],<ref name="dover_behe_ruling">"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by many in the scientific community at large." [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 79 of 139|Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'']]</ref> which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.<ref>"True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design ... use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'" {{cite book |author=Shulman, Seth |title=Undermining science: suppression and distortion in the Bush Administration |publisher=University of California Press |___location=Berkeley |year=2006 |page=13 |isbn=0-520-24702-7}} "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience."<br/>{{cite journal |author=David Mu |title=Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design |journal=Harvard Science Review |volume=19 |issue=1 |date=Fall 2005 |doi= |url=http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf}}<br/>{{cite journal |author=Perakh M |title=Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design |journal=Cell Biol Educ. |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=121–2 |date=Summer 2005 |doi=10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071 |pmc=1103713}}<br/>Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota [http://www.texscience.org/files/faqs.htm Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy] "The Discovery Institute and ID proponents have a number of goals that they hope to achieve using disingenuous and mendacious methods of marketing, publicity, and political persuasion. They do not practice real science because that takes too long, but mainly because this method requires that one have actual evidence and logical reasons for one's conclusions, and the ID proponents just don't have those. If they had such resources, they would use them, and not the disreputable methods they actually use."<br/>See also [[list of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design]]</ref> Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being [[specified complexity]].<ref name="LiveScience- msnbc.com">{{cite web |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9452500/ns/technology_and_science-science/ |title=Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - LiveScience |author=Ker Than|date=September 23, 2005 |publisher=[[msnbc.com]] |accessdate=2010-05-17}}</ref>

[[Michael Behe]], a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, first argued that irreducible complexity made evolution purely through natural selection of random mutations impossible.<ref>*{{cite book |last= Behe |first= Michael |title= Darwin's Black Box |publisher= Free Press |___location= New York |year= 1996 |isbn= 978-0-684-82754-4}}</ref> However, [[evolutionary biology|evolutionary biologists]] have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved, however, this is a theory that hasn't been proven through observable science.<ref name="thornton2006"/><ref name="Redundant Complexity"/> ThereMany evolutionary scientist claim arethey manyhave examples documented through comparative genomics showing that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/nature10724.html</ref><ref>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/341</ref>

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."<ref name="dover_behe_ruling"/>