Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[drkitten]

The concept of irreducible complexity is pretty easy to grasp. If a system won’t work unless all of its parts are there, it’s irreducibly complex. We could try to work out an exact, very specific definition of exactly how it applies in biological systems, and Dembski has, but I don’t see the value of going over that. What it really means is the thing won’t work until its fully assembled. It’s a fancy upgrade to the old question, “What good is half an eye?”

Behe says that a lot of things inside plants and critters and us are irreducibly complex. Examples he gives are the bacterial flagellum and the human blood clotting system. They have lots of parts and they don’t work until all the parts are there.

So, Behe's claim is that blood clotting doesn't work unless all the parts are there. By your own admission.

(Oh, look. That means there might be spare parts that dolphins don’t need. HA. Case closed. Behe is lying! If you can’t see the fallacy in that, ask. Sincere inquiries only, please.)

There is no fallacy. Behe made a false claim.

Behe knew at the time he made it that it was false.

Behe lied.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So, Behe's claim is that blood clotting doesn't work unless all the parts are there. By your own admission.




There is no fallacy. Behe made a false claim.

Behe knew at the time he made it that it was false.

Behe lied.

And he continues to lie every time he claims that he can identify an irreducibly complex system.

His claim was that you know what they are by looking at them, it was shown that he didn't (by the blood clotting example) and yet he repeats the claim.

That is lying.

 

[Meadmaker]

Have a nice vacation!

Thanks, I did.

Would you believe that I knew you would answer with that? Sure the paper doesn't talk about how the flagellum may have evolved from TTSS,

I asked for a paper that talked about how the flagellum may have evolved from a TTSS, and you posted a link to a paper that didn't talk about that. I guess it isn't hard to figure out what my response would be.

What it does do is show how parts of the "IC" system are in use elsewhere for another purpose. That makes the "IC" system not irreducable.

So, a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex because springs can be used in systems that aren't mousetraps?

Paul noted that there are several different places where Dembski and Behe have defined "irreducible complexity", and the definitions are not identical.
The phrase "irreducible complexity" is not an especially well defined term. Behe acknowledges that. I can't recall where I read his discussion of that problem. I believe, though I'm not inclined to look it up at the moment, it was in his Dover testimony. Wherever it was, he said it wasn't his intention to give a precise definition of the term, but to explain the concept, and he has done that, and he has done that well enough for anyone to be able to understand it, if they are inclined to do so.

FWIW, if you really need an accurate definition, Dembski's is better (with the "irreducible core" discussion), but why you think a precise definition, accurate in all cases, is necessary, is beyond me

The incredible thing here is that he has managed to successfully divert attention here.

Here's his basic argument:

1. An irreducibly complex system cannot evolve via natural selection and random mutation.
2. The flagellum is an irreducible complex system.
3. Therefore the flagellum could not have evolved.

He's got a whole bunch of people hornswoggled into arguing about number 2. The real problem with the argument is that premise number 1 is unproven. Indeed, it is probably unprovable and is almost certainly wrong, but you are busy calling Behe a liar on the grounds that you think you have understood his definition and you think his definition is wrong.

The flagellum, like the mousetrap, really is an irreducibly complex system. Give up arguing about that. Instead, focus on number 1. However, to truly, really, disprove number one, you would have to show how one irreducibly complex system (like a TTSS) could evolve into a different one (a flagellum) by a path favored by natural selection at every turn.

Good luck. I don't think that paper exists yet.

It's been 4 pages of this thread. I don't think anyone doesn't get that

DrK thinks I'm telling fibs for Jesus. I emphasize it because most people skim threads, and I want to make sure everyone understands, if they are inclined to do so, that I'm not arguing for creationism or ID.

What I don't get is why you're so heavily invested in the point.

As I said, only a competent therapist could give a truly accurate answer, but if I may say what I'm thinking, it relates to the need to demonize religion in general and ID in particular. I find it disturbing that it's not enough to dismiss ID as unproven, mostly vaccuous, pseudoscience. Instead, it appears important to make ad hominem attacks on those people, questioning the sincerity of belief, and their honesty. It's a phenomenon that has some troubling undertones to it.

 

[Meadmaker]

I found myself wondering if it is truly possible to define, in precise language, the phrase "irreducibly complex". I think I'll try. A system is irreducibly complex if it meets the following criteria.

1. The system performs an identifiable function.
2. The system conists of multiple parts.
3. There exists at least two parts such that if either part is removed, the system will not perform the function it performed when all parts are present.


Even that definition is difficult, for a couple of reasons. First, it's arguable whether biological systems "perform a function". "Function" is really something imposed by an observer. Second, my definition doesn't define a "part".

 

[cyborg]

Thirdly it assumes that there is only one possible function for the parts to perform: namely the one in the configuration of the system being considered to be irreducibly complex.

 

[Meadmaker]

Thirdly it assumes that there is only one possible function for the parts to perform: namely the one in the configuration of the system being considered to be irreducibly complex.

That's not a problem for the definition. Springs perform lots of functions, but if they happen to be part of mousetraps, they do only one thing in a mousetrap.

ETA: In fact, my definition doesn't even make that assumption. In my definition, it says that if you remove one of the key parts, the system can't perform the function identified for the system. It, or the remaining components, could still perform one or more different functions. All the definition says is that it won't perform the function identified for the complete system.

 

[cyborg]

Uh, it is a bit of a problem because by that definition of irreducibly complex any system is so.

If springs have lots of uses then they can evolve in separate contexts. If gears have lots of uses they can evolve in separate contexts. And so on...

At that point arguing a clock is irreducibly complex because removing a spring makes it fail to keep time seems a little incredulous does it not?

The irreducibly complex parts have to be the spring, gears and so forth... except they aren't very complex...

 

[Meadmaker]

If springs have lots of uses then they can evolve in separate contexts. If gears have lots of uses they can evolve in separate contexts. And so on


At that point arguing a clock is irreducibly complex because removing a spring makes it fail to keep time seems a little incredulous does it not?

The definition of irreducible complexity has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, and it doesn't matter whether you use the definition I gave or one of the ones Behe and Dembski gave.

If you find yourself arguing about whether or not something is irreducible complex, and you think you are arguing about evolution, Behe has successfully diverted your attention.

 

[cyborg]

The definition of irreducible complexity has absolutely nothing to do with evolution,

Uh no - it has to because the definition you present makes the term impotent. It merely states that a system will not work as the system is defined if the system does not have the components to make the system work as defined.

You can take 'evolved' to mean 'engineered' - as far as I'm concerned the actual difference is minor.

If you find yourself arguing about whether or not something is irreducible complex, and you think you are arguing about evolution, Behe has successfully diverted your attention.

Uh no - irreducible complexity is certainly tied to evolution. Such a definition makes no sense otherwise because the whole argument really isn't about the system in place: it's about the path to produce the system.

See above: pointing out that a system will not work as advertised if you remove components that make it work as advertised is not insightful.

 

[Meadmaker]

Uh no - it has to because the definition you present makes the term impotent.

And?

Uh no - irreducible complexity is certainly tied to evolution. Such a definition makes no sense otherwise because the whole argument really isn't about the system in place: it's about the path to produce the system.

Definitions aren't arguments.

See above: pointing out that a system will not work as advertised if you remove components that make it work as advertised is not insightful.

And?

 

[cyborg]

And?

Or?

Definitions aren't arguments.

Arguments aren't definitions.

And?

Not?

 

[Meadmaker]

Ok, Cyborg, let's go slow.

Uh no - it has to because the definition you present makes the term impotent.

That's correct. The term is practically useless. It means darned near nothing. All it means is, to quote you

It merely states that a system will not work as the system is defined if the system does not have the components to make the system work as defined.

That's all. There's nothing more. It means that it needs at least two parts to work, and if it doesn't have them, it won't. A mousetrap won't work unless all the vital parts of the mousetrap are there. There must be a spring, a plate, a hammer, and some cheese. There might be paint or a label, but it doesn't really need those, but if you take away one of the four key parts, the "irreducible core", it isn't a mousetrap anymore. It is, therefore, irreducibly complex.

That's what the phrase means. There's no evolution involved. No biology. No science, really. Just a definition of a term.

Flagella are irreducibly complex, too. In fact, every organ in every organism is irreducibly complex. Probably every organelle as well.

Uh no - irreducible complexity is certainly tied to evolution.

In its definition, it is not.

Such a definition makes no sense otherwise because the whole argument really isn't about the system in place: it's about the path to produce the system.

Now you are getting to evolution. He does indeed make an argument about irreducibly complex systems. He says they cannot evolve through natural selection. That isn't part of the definition, though. He wouldn't have bothered to coin the term unless he was going to use it in an argument about evolution, but the term itself is unrelated to evolution.

See above: pointing out that a system will not work as advertised if you remove components that make it work as advertised is not insightful.

No, it's not. What's your point?

It's rare that I see complaints on JREF that we aren't giving enough credit to Michael Behe. What you have said, and I agree, is that Behe's labelling such systems as "irreducibly complex" is not very insightful. I agree. I think everyone here agrees. Michael Behe is not a very insightful man. He might think he is quite profound, but if he does that's further proof that he isn't.

Don't give him credit for more insight than he has. When you start arguing about whether the flagellum is "irreducibly complex", you are acting like "irreducible complexity" is a big deal. It's not a big deal.

Meanwhile, Behe has used his definition to divert you from his argument. His argument is that irreducibly complex systems can't evolve. To prove him wrong, show how one can. In principle, it's pretty easy.

 

[cyborg]

I don't know why you think I am conversing with Behe Meadmaker - I really can't fathom why.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't know why you think I am conversing with Behe Meadmaker - I really can't fathom why.

Because you are conversing about a definition of irreducible complexity, which definition is most commonly associated with Behe.

 

[cyborg]

And in what world does that mean I am actually conversing with him?

 

[Meadmaker]

And in what world does that mean I am actually conversing with him?

Fine, let me modify my previous post.


Here's the original: (Portions with no reference to Behe omitted)

Now you are getting to evolution. He does indeed make an argument about irreducibly complex systems. He says they cannot evolve through natural selection. That isn't part of the definition, though. He wouldn't have bothered to coin the term unless he was going to use it in an argument about evolution, but the term itself is unrelated to evolution.

Quote:
See above: pointing out that a system will not work as advertised if you remove components that make it work as advertised is not insightful.

No, it's not. What's your point?

It's rare that I see complaints on JREF that we aren't giving enough credit to Michael Behe. What you have said, and I agree, is that Behe's labelling such systems as "irreducibly complex" is not very insightful. I agree. I think everyone here agrees. Michael Behe is not a very insightful man. He might think he is quite profound, but if he does that's further proof that he isn't.

Don't give him credit for more insight than he has. When you start arguing about whether the flagellum is "irreducibly complex", you are acting like "irreducible complexity" is a big deal. It's not a big deal.

Meanwhile, Behe has used his definition to divert you from his argument. His argument is that irreducibly complex systems can't evolve. To prove him wrong, show how one can. In principle, it's pretty easy.

Here's the modification:


Now you are getting to evolution. A lot of people do indeed make an argument about irreducibly complex systems. They say they cannot evolve through natural selection. That isn't part of the definition, though. You rarely hear the term outside the context of evolution, but the term itself is unrelated to evolution.

See above: pointing out that a system will not work as advertised if you remove components that make it work as advertised is not insightful.

No, it's not. What's your point?

It's rare that I see complaints on JREF that we aren't giving enough credit to arguments supporting ID. What you have said, and I agree, is that labelling such systems as "irreducibly complex" is not very insightful. I agree. I think everyone here agrees. ID doesn't provide a lot of insight. Some people may think that ID and "irreducible complexity" are quite profound, but if they do, that's proof that they haven't understood the concepts.


Don't give these arguments more credit thant they deserve. When you start arguing about whether the flagellum is "irreducibly complex", you are acting like "irreducible complexity" is a big deal. It's not a big deal.

 

[cyborg]

Don't give these arguments more credit than they deserve.

Again I cannot possibly fathom how you come away with the impression I give these arguments any credit at all.

 

[Meadmaker]

Again I cannot possibly fathom how you come away with the impression I give these arguments any credit at all.

My point is that it is easy to do so unintentionally.

Do you agree that a flagellum is an irreducibly complex system?

If you say no, you are giving the term more credit than it deserves.

 

[cyborg]

Do you agree that a flagellum is an irreducibly complex system?

If you say no, you are giving the term more credit than it deserves.

Ah, in Meadmaker world you make the conclusions.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ah, in Meadmaker world you make the conclusions.

But why avoid the question?

Is the flagellum irreducibly complex?

I would be curious about your answer, and your reasoning. Feel free not to answer if that suits your fancy, but I would be curious about your answer.