Irreducible complexity: a definition (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, August 25, 2023, 21:11 (457 days ago) @ David Turell

Definition and arguments that are for and dispute it:

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/ic-cr.htm

" Four Definitions of Irreducible Complexity
1. Michael Behe's Original Definition — [an irreducibly complex system is] "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Darwin's Black Box, page 39, 1996)
2. William Dembski's Enhanced Definition — "A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system." (No Free Lunch, page 285, 2001)
3. Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition — "An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway." (A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box, 2002)
4. My Revision of Behe's Original Definition — A system is irreducibly complex if there is no function for any system that is missing one part, i.e. if all "subsystems with one less part" are functionless. { This revision, suggested in 2001, corrects a minor error in Behe's original definition; the error does not affect the logic of claims about irreducible complexity if we use Definitions 2, 3 or 4. }"

Counter arguments are weak:

"Ken Miller claims that he has "answered the biochemical argument from design" even though he acknowledges that biologists "have not provided a detailed, step-by-step explanation of the evolution of the flagellum." But he thinks this failure is temporary, and "is not much of an argument against Darwin; rather, it means that the field is still active, vital, and filled with scientific challenges." By contrast, a scientist who is more cautiously humble (in predicting what will happen in the future of science) might think that although we eventually may learn enough to confidently conclude that this really was "not much of an argument," currently more humility is appropriate due to the current absence of detailed evolutionary explanations. Miller's page to "answer the arguments" is not humble. Instead it is filled with bold declarations that arguments for design are "disproved... falsified... invalidated... demonstrably false... collapsed... incorrect... fatally flawed... wrong." (my bold)

" By contrast with these triumphalist proclamations, it seems more scientifically justifiable to admit that "we don't know for certain, so we need to collect and evaluate more evidence." The pages cited in this section are from 2003-2004, and now in 2009 [and still in 2010] I think "the jury is still out" when we look for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" on a verdict either for or against claims that irreducibly complex biological systems provide evidence for intelligent design. We can also ask questions about the rate of evolution — for each step in an extrapolation from small-scale evolution to a large-scale natural production of all biological complexity, how many mutations and how much selection would be required to produce the changes we observe in DNA, how long would this take, and how probable is it? — and I think that in current science the answers are not certain, thus providing another reason for logically appropriate humility. During a process of gradually learning more, the claims (and counter-claims) that seem logically justifiable will become more apparent, but until then some humility seems justifiable."

Comment: read all the back-and-forth arguments and pick a position.