Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 2 December 2006

Part of a series on
Intelligent design
Watchmaker analogy
Concepts
Irreducible complexity Specified complexity Fine-tuned universe Intelligent designer Theistic science Neo-creationism
Movement
Timeline Wedge strategy Politics Kitzmiller v. Dover
Campaigns
Discovery Institute campaigns "Teach the controversy"
Authors
Jonathan Wells William A. Dembski Phillip E. Johnson Michael Behe Stephen C. Meyer
Organisations
Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Centre for Intelligent Design International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity Truth in Science
Reactions
Jewish Roman Catholic Scientific bodies that explicitly reject intelligent design
Creationism
Category
v t e

This article covers irreducible complexity as used by those who argue for intelligent design. For information on irreducible complexity as used in Systems Theory, see Emergence.

Irreducible complexity is the discredited argument that certain biological systems are absolutely too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors. The idea is used as an argument for the intelligent design of life, against the theory of evolution. The defining distinction between irreducible complexity as used in the context of intelligent design and irreducible complexity as used in systems theory is how each answers the question of whether irreducibly complex systems can evolve from simple systems. Intelligent design proponents argue that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve from simple systems, while systems researchers have identified systems which have done exactly this (see Emergence for more on this).

Evolutionary theory holds that very complex biological systems can be reduced to a great deal of successive improvements. Irreducible complexity argues that there are some structures where this is not possible - it claims that the constituent parts of these structures would be useless prior to their current state. An "irreducibly complex system" is defined as "one that could not function if it were any simpler", and therefore, intelligent design proponents claim, could not possibly have been formed by successive additions to a precursor system with the same functionality. The most common examples used in argument are the complexity of the eye, the Blood clotting cascade, or the motor in a cell's flagellum.

Irreducible complexity is generally dismissed by the majority of the scientific community; it is often referred to as pseudoscience. Irreducible complexity's value as a scientific proposal fails on a variety of grounds, such as its utilization of a God of the gaps style (an argument from ignorance), its non-predictive nature and its failure to provide a testable or falsifiable hypothesis. On several occasions, structures once purported to be irreducibly complex have been shown to have evolved incrementally into these allegedly irreducibly complex systems.

Computer simulations such as Chris Adami's Avida, have indicated that proposed current irreducibly complex systems could evolve through a Darwinian process. Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design and other creationists.

Definitions

Part of a series on
Creationism
History
Types
Young Earth Old Earth day-age gap progressive Neo-creationism
Biblical cosmology
Book of Genesis creation narrative as an allegory Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science
Created kind Flood geology Creationist cosmologies Intelligent design
Rejection of evolution by religious groups
History Public education "Teach the Controversy"
Religious views
Non-creation Creator in Buddhism Jainism and non-creationism Evolution Theistic evolution Buddhist Catholic Hindu Islamic Jewish Mormon
v t e

The term "irreducible complexity" was originally defined by Behe as:

A single system which is 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". (Darwin's Black Box p9)

Supporters of intelligent design use this term to refer to biological systems and organs that they believe could not have come about by any series of small changes. They argue that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of natural selection. Although they accept that some complex systems and organs can be explained by evolution, they claim that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be explained by current models, and that an intelligent designer must have created life or guided its evolution. Accordingly, the debate on irreducible complexity concerns two questions: whether irreducible complexity can be found in nature, and what significance it would have if it did exist in nature.

A second definition given by Behe (his "evolutionary definition") is as follows:

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.

Intelligent design advocate William Dembski gives this 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, 285)

History

Forerunners

The argument from irreducible complexity is a descendant of the teleological argument for God (the argument from design or from complexity). This states that because certain things in nature are very complicated, they must have been designed. William Paley famously argued, in his 1802 watchmaker analogy, that complexity in nature implies a God for the same reason that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. This argument has a long history, and can be traced back at least as far as Cicero's De natura deorum, ii. 34 (see Hallam, Literature of Europe, ii. 385, note).

The idea that the interrelationship between parts of living things would have implications for their origins was raised by writers starting with Pierre Gassendi in the mid 17th century (De Generatione Animalium, chapter III); in the early 18th century, Nicolas Malebranche (De la recherche de la verité 6.2.4, 6th edition, 1712) used this idea to argue in favor of preformation (see homunculus), rather than full development (see epigenesis), of the individual embryo; and a similar argument about the origins of the individual was made by other 18th century students of natural history. In a different application, in the early 19th century Georges Cuvier used the concept of "correlation of parts" in establishing the anatomy of animals from fragmentary remains.

While he did not originate the term, Charles Darwin identified the argument as a possible way to falsify a prediction of the theory of evolution at the outset. In The Origin of Species, he wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." Darwin's theory of evolution challenges the teleological argument by postulating an alternative explanation to that of an intelligent designer—namely, evolution by natural selection. The argument from irreducible complexity attempts to demonstrate that certain biological features cannot be purely the product of Darwinian evolution.

Hermann Muller, in the early 20th century, discussed a concept similar to irreducible complexity, but it was not problematic for evolution. Rather, he wrote about the "interlocking" of biological features as a consequence to be expected of evolution, which would lead to irreversibility of some evolutionary changes.

Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary.

An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th-century Austrian biologist. He believed that complex systems must be examined as complete, irreducible systems in order to fully understand how they work. He extended his work on biological complexity into a general theory of systems in a book titled General Systems Theory. After James Watson and Francis Crick published the structure of DNA in the early 1950s, General Systems Theory lost many of its adherents in the physical and biological sciences. Jacques Monod's Chance and Necessity provides a good discussion of the "triumph" of the mechanistic view in biochemistry. However, Systems theory remained popular in the social sciences long after its demise in the physical and biological sciences.

Origins

Michael Behe first used the term "irreducible complexity" in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, to refer to certain complex biochemical cellular systems. He posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain the development of such "irreducibly complex" systems. Notably, Behe credits philosopher William Paley for the original concept, not von Bertalanffy, and suggests that his application of the concept to biological systems is entirely original. Intelligent design advocates argue that irreducibly complex systems must have been deliberately engineered by some form of intelligence.

In 2001, Michael Behe admitted that his work had a "defect" and does not actually address "the task facing natural selection". Additionally, in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe testified under oath that irreducible complexity did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms, and that there existed no peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex". The result of the trial was the ruling that "intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature".

According to the theory of evolution, genetic variations occur without specific design or intent. The environment "selects" the variants that have the highest fitness, which are then passed on to the next generation of organisms. Change occurs by the gradual operation of natural forces over time, perhaps slowly, perhaps more quickly (see punctuated equilibrium). This process is able to adapt complex structures from simpler beginnings, or convert complex structures from one function to another (see spandrel). Most intelligent design advocates accept that evolution occurs through mutation and natural selection at the "micro level", such as changing the relative frequency of various beak lengths in finches, but assert that it cannot account for irreducible complexity, because none of the parts of an irreducible system would be functional or advantageous until the entire system is in place.

Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer. Behe contends that all of these must be in place for the mousetrap to work, and that the removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Likewise, biological systems require multiple parts working together in order to function. Intelligent design advocates claim that natural selection could not create from scratch those systems for which science is currently not able to find a viable evolutionary pathway of successive, slight modifications, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled. Behe's original examples of irreducibly complex mechanisms included the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.

Behe argues that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be wholly explained by current models of evolution. He argues that:

An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

Irreducible complexity is not an argument that evolution does not occur, but rather an argument that it is "incomplete". In the last chapter of Darwin's Black Box, Behe goes on to explain his view that irreducible complexity is evidence for intelligent design. Mainstream critics, however, argue that irreducible complexity, as defined by Behe, can be generated by known evolutionary mechanisms. Behe's claim that there is no scientific literature on the evolution of biochemical systems is demonstrably false.

In his "Reply to My Critics", Behe admitted that there was a "defect" in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection". Behe specifically explained that the "current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system", but the "difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place". In that article, Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work". However, such work has not yet been published.

Stated examples

Behe and others have suggested a number of biological features that they believe may be irreducibly complex.

Blood clotting cascade

The blood clotting cascade in vertebrates is a complex biological pathway that is given as an example of apparent irreducible complexity.

The irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary, and therefore could not have been added sequentially. However, in evolution, something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary. For example, one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales, demonstrating that it is not essential for a clotting system. Many purportedly irreducible structures can be found in other organisms as much simpler systems that utilize fewer parts. These systems in turn may have had even simpler precursors that are now extinct.

Eye

The eye is a famous example of a supposedly "irreducibly complex" structure, due to its many elaborate and interlocking parts, seemingly all dependent upon one another. It is frequently cited by intelligent design and creationism advocates as an example of irreducible complexity. Behe used the "development of the eye problem" as evidence for intelligent design in Darwin's Black Box. Although Behe acknowledged that the evolution of the larger anatomical features of the eye have been well-explained, he claimed that the complexity of the minute biochemical reactions required at a molecular level for light sensitivity still defies explanation. Creationist Jonathan Sarfati has described the eye as evolutionary biologists' "greatest challenge as an example of superb 'irreducible complexity' in God's creation", specifically pointing to the supposed "vast complexity" required for transparency.

In an oft-quoted passage from The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin himself acknowledged the eye's development as a difficulty for his theory, noting that "to suppose that the eye... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to note that, if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, "the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real", and proceeded to roughly map a possible course for evolution through examples from gradually more complex eyes of various species.

Since Darwin's day, the eye's ancestry has become much better understood. Although learning about the construction of ancient eyes through fossil evidence is problematic due to the soft tissues leaving no imprint or remains, genetic and comparative anatomical evidence has increasingly supported the idea of a common ancestry for all eyes.

Current evidence indicates that eyes originated as simple patches of photoreceptor cells that could detect the presence or absence of light, but not its direction. By developing a small depression for the photosensitive cells, the organisms obtained a better sense of the light's source, and by continuing to deepen the depression into a pit so that light would strike certain cells depending on its angle, increasingly precise visible information was possible. The aperture of the eye was then shrunk in order to focus the light, turning the eye into a pinhole camera and allowing the organism to dimly make out shapes—the nautilus is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, the protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images. In this way, eyes are recognized by modern biologists as actually a relatively unambiguous and simple structure to evolve, and many of the major developments of the eye's evolution are believed to have taken place over only a few million years, during the Cambrian explosion.

Flagella

The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 complex protein parts, and the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function. Behe holds that the flagellum "engine" is irreducibly complex because if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly.

Mainstream scientists regard this argument as having been largely disproved in the light of fairly recent research. They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as salmonella use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has many elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing most of the proteins that make a flagellum work. Thus, this system seems to negate the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. This has caused Miller to note that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."

Response of the scientific community

Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."

Reducibility of "irreducible" systems

Potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the immune system and the flagellum, which were the three examples Behe used. Even his example of a mousetrap was shown to be reducible by John H. McDonald. If irreducible complexity is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways—Behe has remarked that such plausible pathways would defeat his argument.

Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin, both of East Tennessee State University, have shown that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes. They also assert that what evolved biochemical and molecular systems actually exhibit is "redundant complexity"—a kind of complexity that is the product of an evolved biochemical process. They claim that Behe overestimated the significance of irreducible complexity because of his simple, linear view of biochemical reactions, resulting in his taking snapshots of selective features of biological systems, structures and processes, while ignoring the redundant complexity of the context in which those features are naturally embedded. They also criticized his over-reliance of overly simplistic metaphors, such as his mousetrap. In addition, it has been claimed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally.

It is illustrative to compare a mousetrap with a cat, in this context. Both normally function so as to control the mouse population. The cat has many parts that can be removed leaving it still functional; for example, its tail can be bobbed or it can be spayed. Evolution has endowed it with redundant eyes, so if one eye goes blind, the cat can still catch mice. Comparing the cat and the mousetrap, then, one sees that the mousetrap (which is not alive) offers better evidence, in terms of irreducible complexity, for intelligent design than the cat. Even looking at the mousetrap analogy, several critics have described ways in which the parts of the mousetrap could have independent uses or could develop in stages, demonstrating that it is not irreducibly complex.

Moreover, even cases where removing a certain component in an organic system will cause the system to fail do not demonstrate that the system couldn't have been formed in a step-by-step, evolutionary process. By analogy, stone arches are irreducibly complex—if you remove any stone the arch will collapse—yet we build them easily enough, one stone at a time, by building over scaffolding that is removed afterward. Similarly, naturally occurring arches of stone are formed by weathering away bits of stone from a large concretion that has formed previously.

Evolution can act to simplify as well as to complicate. This raises the possibility that seemingly irreducibly complex biological features may have been achieved with a period of increasing complexity, followed by a period of simplification.

It may be that irreducible complexity does not actually exist in nature, that the examples given by Behe and others are not in fact irreducibly complex, but can be explained in terms of simpler precursors. There has also been a theory that challenges irreducible complexity called facilitated variation. The theory has been presented in 2005 by Marc W. Kirschner, a professor and chair of Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, and John C. Gerhart, a professor in Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley. In their theory, they describe how certain mutation and changes can cause apparent irreducible complexity. Thus, seemingly irreducibly complex structures are merely "very complex", or they are simply misunderstood or misrepresented.

Gradual adaptation to new functions

The precursors of complex systems, when they are not useful in themselves, may be useful to perform other, unrelated functions. Evolutionary biologists argue that evolution often works in this kind of blind, haphazard manner in which the function of an early form is not necessarily the same as the function of the later form. The mammalian ear (derived from a jawbone) and the panda's thumb (derived from a wrist bone spur) are considered classic examples. A current article in Nature demonstrates intermediate states leading toward the development of the ear in a Devonian fish (about 360 million years ago). Furthermore, recent research shows that viruses play a heretofore unexpectedly great role in evolution by mixing and matching genes from various hosts.

Arguments for irreducibility often assume that things started out the same way they ended up—as we see them now. However, that may not necessarily be the case.

Regarding Behe's antibody example, we have the "marker" substance and the "killer" substance, that together hunt and kill marked invaders. Behe claims that by themselves, the marker and the killer are useless, and thus must have been made at the same time. The killer cannot kill what it cannot find and the marker has no ability to kill even if it can find a target.

However, under gradual replacement, a different marker may have started out as an independent hunter AND killer. After a while, a helper killer joined this army because it had some nice specialties. However, this second killer still depended on the first one to find the target. Thus the first killer served as both a marker and a killer, and the second killer is just a killer, relying on the first to hunt.

Perhaps over time it is more efficient to have the second killer specialize in killing and the first specialize in marking, and so the first killer is replaced by a similar substance that is merely a marker (perhaps a better marker than the first dual-purpose one).

Thus, each step is an advantage, yet the final result is a dependent pair that does not resemble the proto-killer. This example can be laid out as:

A = original killer and marker

K = second killer

M = replacement marker

1. A
2. AK
3. AMK
4. MK

All we see today is "MK". Opponents of irreducible complexity state that Behe erroneously assumes that if the structure ended up MK, then it must have started out as M or K by themselves.

Handicaps and sexual selection

According to critics, another overlooked source of "irreducibly complex" features in a sexually reproducing organism is the handicap principle. Sexual selection often favors those who can demonstrate to their mates a surplus of energy by maintaining a feature or behavior that is unnecessary for basic survival—sometimes even a hindrance. Examples include certain horns and antlers, display feathers, skin or hair colors and patterns, bony structure, scents, songs, symmetry, and elaborate ritualistic behavior. It is not unreasonable to imagine a handicapping feature eventually developing a useful purpose in a changing environment or for two or more handicapping features to become useful when combined. Conversely, a useful feature may evolve to become a handicapping feature, but through sexual selection the feature is passed through generations to again become useful in a completely different context. In this new context, it may seem impossible to us that it was naturally selected to its purpose.

Imagine that a spontaneous hole formed in a pre-bird lizard's lung and quickly became a demonstration to potential mates that it has "energy to burn" because it was successful despite its handicap. Perhaps it evolved as a mating display because it made a distinctive sound like a frog's mating display. That feature could have been maintained by sexual selection long enough to have evolved into the modern bird lung we see today.

However, this objection accounts for relatively few of the virtually unlimited potential intermediate stages of evolving features.

Falsifiability and experimental evidence

Some critics, such as Jerry Coyne (professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago) and Eugenie Scott (a physical anthropologist and executive director of the National Center for Science Education) have argued that the concept of irreducible complexity, and more generally, the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore, not scientific.

Behe argues that the theory that irreducibly complex systems could not have been evolved can be falsified by an experiment where such systems are evolved. For example, he posits taking bacteria with no flagella and imposing a selective pressure for mobility. If, after a few thousand generations, the bacteria evolved the bacterial flagellum, then Behe believes that this would refute his theory.

Other critics take a different approach, pointing to experimental evidence that they believe falsifies the argument for Intelligent Design from irreducible complexity. For example, Kenneth Miller cites the lab work of Barry Hall on E. coli, which he asserts is evidence that "Behe is wrong."

Argument from ignorance

Intelligent design proponents attribute to an intelligent designer those biological structures they believe are irreducibly complex and where a natural explanation is absent or insufficient to account for them. However, critics view irreducible complexity as a special case of the "complexity indicates design" claim, and thus see it as an argument from ignorance and God of the gaps argument.

Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. Behe has been accused of using an "argument by lack of imagination", and Behe himself acknowledges that simply because scientists cannot currently see how an "irreducibly complex" organism could evolve, it does not prove that there is no possible way for it to have occurred.

Irreducible complexity is at its core an argument against evolution. If truly irreducible systems were found, the implication is that intelligent design is the correct explanation for their existence. However, this conclusion is based on the assumption that current evolutionary theory and intelligent design are the only two valid models to explain life, a false dilemma.

Irreducible complexity in the Dover trial

While testifying at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."

In the final ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School 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 because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73)
• "As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts 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 fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75)
• "As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." (Page 76)
• "...on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))." (Page 78)
• "We therefore 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 at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)). We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6- 7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller))." (Pages 79-80)

Notes and references

1. Per Bak, How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality, Copernicus Books, 1996, ISBN 0-387-94791-4, ISBN 0-387-98738-X.
2. *Ricard V. Solé and Jordi Bascompte, Selforganization in Complex Ecosystems, Princeton U. Press, 2006.
3. ^ Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Cite error: The named reference "Kitzmiller_ruling_ID_science" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
4. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1: "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Review of scientists' anti Irreducible Complexity books in which "pseudoscience" is one of the nicer epithets used. The contempt of the scientific community towards what it sees as anti-science is barely concealed. 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."
5. Andrew Pyle, Malebranche on Animal Generation: Preexistence and the Microscope, in Justin E.H. Smith, ed. (2006) The Problem of Animal Generation in Early Modern Philosophy ISBN 0-521-84077-5, pg 202-203
6. The Chicken or the Egg
7. Hermann J. Muller: Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors, Genetics 1918 3: 422-499, especially pages 463-464.
8. Herman J. Muller: Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics, Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 4(3) 1939, 261-280, quotation from page 272.
9. Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1952). Problems of Life: An Evaluation of Modern Biological and Scientific Thought, pg 148 ISBN 1-131-79242-4
10. Behe, Michael (2001). Reply to My Critics. See also Behe's testimonial in Kitzmiller v. Dover
11. Behe, Michael 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science (p. 88)
12. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 6: Conclusion, section H
13. ^ A reducibly complex mousetrap (graphics-intensive, requires JavaScript)
14. Behe, Michael (2001). Reply to My Critics.
15. Action, George "Behe and the Blood Clotting Cascade"
16. Semba U, Shibuya Y, Okabe H, Yamamoto T (1998). "Whale Hageman factor (factor XII): prevented production due to pseudogene conversion". Thromb Res. 90 (1): 31–7. PMID 9678675.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
17. Sarfati, Jonathan (2000). Argument: 'Irreducible complexity', from Refuting Evolution (Answers in Genesis).
18. Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray.
19. Halder, G., Callaerts, P. and Gehring, W.J. (1995). "New perspectives on eye evolution." Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 5 (pp. 602 –609).
20. Halder, G., Callaerts, P. and Gehring, W.J. (1995). "Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila". Science 267 (pp. 1788–1792).
21. Tomarev, S.I., Callaerts, P., Kos, L., Zinovieva, R., Halder, G., Gehring, W., and Piatigorsky, J. (1997). "Squid Pax-6 and eye development." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94 (pp. 2421–2426).
22. Fernald, Russell D. (2001). The Evolution of Eyes: Why Do We See What We See? Karger Gazette 64: "The Eye in Focus".
23. Fernald, Russell D. (1998). Aquatic Adaptations in Fish Eyes. New York, Springer.
24. Fernald, Russell D. (1997). " The evolution of eyes." Brain Behav Evol. 50 (pp. 253–259).
25. Conway-Morris, S. (1998). The Crucible of Creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Miller, Kenneth R. The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" with reply here
27. Manier, Jeremy Unlocking cell secrets bolsters evolutionists (Chicago Tribune, 2006 Feb 13)
28. Mirsky, Steve Sticker Shock: In the beginning was the cautionary advisory Scientific American, Feb 2005
29. Matt Inlay, 2002. "Evolving Immunity." In TalkDesign.org.
30. Nic J. Matzke, 2003. "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum."
31. In TalkDesign.org John H. McDonald A reducibly complex mousetrap.
32. Shanks, Niall Redundant Complexity:A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry
33. Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin. Redundant Complexity:A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry. East Tennessee State University.
34. Lenski RE, Ofria C, Pennock RT, Adami C (2003). "The evolutionary origin of complex features". Nature. 423 (6936): 139–44. PMID 12736677.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
35. M. Brazeau and P. Ahlberg (Jan 19, 2006). "Tetrapod-like middle ear architecture in a Devonian fish". Nature. 439 (7074): 318–321. doi:10.1038/nature04196.
36. Finding Darwin's God Kenneth Miller. Harper Collins, 1999
37. Michael Behe. Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry. 1996.
38. Index to Creationist Claims. Mark Isaak. The Talk.Origins Archive. "Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity." "The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps."
39. Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch, "Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists, National Center for Science Education website, September 10, 2002.
40. IC and Evolution makes the point that: if "irreducible complexity" is tautologically redefined to allow a valid argument that intelligent design is the correct explanation for life then there is no such thing as "irreducible complexity" in the mechanisms of life; while, if we use the unmodified original definition then "irreducible complexity" has nothing whatever to do with evolution.

Additional references

• Behe, Michael (1996). Darwin's Black Box. New York: The Free Press. ISBN 0-684-83493-6
• Denton, Michael (1986). Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler & Adler.
• Macnab RM (2004). "Type III flagellar protein export and flagellar assembly". Biochim Biophys Acta. 1694 (1–3): 207–17. PMID 15546667.
• Ruben, J.A.; Jones, T.D.; Geist, N.R.; & Hillenius, W.J. (November 14, 1997). "Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds". Science. 278 (5341): 1267–1270. doi:10.1126/science.278.5341.1267. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Sunderland, Luther D. (March 1976). Miraculous Design in Woodpeckers. Creation Research Society Quarterly.
• Testing Darwin Discover Magazine Vol. 26 No. 02 | February 2005

External links

• Himma, Kenneth Einar. Design Arguments for the Existence of God. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

In support

• Michael J. Behe home page
• Institute for Creation Research (pdf)
• Irreducible Complexity Revisited (pdf)
• Behe's Reply to his Critics (pdf)
• Dr. Thomas Gold opines about new scientific ideas.
• Argument: 'Irreducible complexity'
• Origins - Intelligent Design
• Answers in Genesis
• Response to Avida computer simulations

In opposition

• "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" - The bacterial motor video review
• Behe, Biochemistry, and the Invisible Hand
• Facilitated Variation
• Darwin vs. Intelligent Design (again), by H. Allen Orr (review of Darwin's Black Box)
• Talk.origins archive (see talk.origins)
  • Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe: Do Biochemical Machines Show Intelligent Design?
  • Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? by Keith Robinson
  • Is the Complement System Irreducibly Complex? by Mike Coon
  • Genetic Algorithms (Genetic algorithms have produced irreducibly complex solutions to real problems.)
  • Discussion of the Bombardier Beetle at Talk.origins
• TalkDesign.org (sister site to talk.origins archive on intelligent design)
  • Irreducible complexity demystified by Pete Dunkelberg.
• Professor Kenneth R. Miller's textbook website
  • A Darwinian explanation of the blood clotting cascade
• "The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" by Professor Miller
• A rigorous mathematical analysis of the concept of irreducible complexity by Mishkin Berteig.
• PDF. 139 page in-depth analysis of Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and the book "Of Pandas and People" by a judge and based on expert testimony
• Devolution: Why intelligent design isn't (The New Yorker)
• Unlocking cell secrets bolsters evolutionists (Chicago Tribune)
• Does irreducible complexity imply Intelligent Design? by Mark Perakh
• Evolution of the Eye (Video) Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson demonstrates eye evolution through intermediate stages with working model. (PBS)

• Creationism
• Intelligent design
• Intelligent design movement
• Pseudoscience