Irreducible Complexity (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 06, 2010, 02:14 (5435 days ago) @ xeno6696

While I should have left this where it was I started rereading this section.-ID theory follows a similar approach. ID advocates claim (with much justification) that the entire scientific community is clueless about the emergence of biological complexity and that the material mechanisms to which the biological community looks provides no clue how these systems might realistically have come about. -
The problem with this statement is that it 
1. (Calls itself a theory, when it is in fact, a hypothesis.) 
2. Essentially only cries foul that science hasn't delivered an answer.
3. There are plenty of ideas about how they "realistically might come about," however, there is no experimental evidence for them yet. This simply means that the question is unresolved, not that mystical solutions suddenly become tenable. -Their claim is that certain features are irreducibly complex—that they are a single system 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. They consider explanations that these structure arose by natural selection to be equivalent to my walk to the moon. And since they believe the natural parameters rule out the possibility of these complex structures arising solely by natural selection, they are warranted in searching for an alternate explanation.-In this case, NS is possibly being a scapegoat. From the sound of it, biology is beginning to undergo a paradigm shift that will displace NS as a primary mechanism to cause change. (It likely "verifies" which creatures are fit or not in many instances, but works in concert with other physical phenomenon.) But note that the new theories discussing evolution aren't being created by ID "researchers." -Since there has been a gross explanatory failure in accounting for biological complexity I'm not sure why there is such opposition to considering this possibility. Obviously, if you are committed to atheistic materialism then you are less likely to consider evidence for intelligent design (though you should still be open to it). But why should theists be similar constrained? This research program may lead down a false path—but so has the current approach. Since biologists are unable to explain any complex biological functions without resorting to the language of teleology and design, you'd think they'd be more open to the possibility that actual teleology or design was involved in the process.-Again, this seems to be more an assertion that "because science can't explain it, then mysticism has to." It is true that mysticism was the first explanation for life; but it isn't the case that if science hasn't provided an answer then we must accept the previous explanation. We accept NO explanation, one because it doesn't actually explain anything, and the other because it is presently insufficient.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"