Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 30 December 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid.

Creationism Unassessed High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 01 — March 2002 to January 2006 /Archive 02 — January 2006 to August 2006

Basic rule of thumb regarding complexity in systems

My observation has been that intelligent design leads to simpler systems, not more complex systems. In fact, simplifying the interfaces is a keystone characteristic of good systems architecture. Now, I grant you that I'm not an 'expert' (being as I'm only purusing my degree in systems architecture), but I'm wondering if anyone has a good link off the top of their head to that effect? I could probably dig something up, but my time is at a premium right now. -Psychohistorian 14:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So modern cars with air conditioning, heated seats and more powerful computers than those used by NASA to put the first man on the moon are simpler systems than WWII Jeeps? An awful lot of mechanics would be very surprised to hear that. Windows XP is simpler than DOS? Microwave ovens are simpler than hearths? I'm sorry but your observation does not seem to hold up. Simplying the interface has little or nothing to do with simplifying the tool itself. Rossami (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A system's complexity isn't determined by what it accomplishes, but how it accomplishes it. Two systems can accomplish the exact same thing and one be more complex than the other. Go ahead and ask those mechanics you were talking about about that. -Psychohistorian 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your implied definition of "the system" is consistent in this context. Is the car the system? If so, yes the modern car does more things. Your definition would seem to imply that we should not treat the car as the system but must look only at components of completely comparable capability - maybe the drive train or the tires. Behe and others, however, argue that the eye is the system and that we must look at the complete system to determine if irreducible complexity exists. Yet modern binocular eyes with color-vision, etc do more things than proto-eyes which can only sense illumination but have no focus or discrimination. I'm having trouble reconciling your definition of "system" with the examples used in the debate here. Rossami (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"I'm having trouble reconciling your definition of "system" with the examples used in the debate here." That, I think, is because you are working from the premise that Behe et al are talking about the same subject - that they are educated in systems science when all evidence is to the contrary. What I'm trying to do is correct a huge misunderstanding about irreducible complexity - a misunderstanding which has been propogated by both critics of Behe's argument and supporters Behe and company's argument. What I'm trying to clarify is that the problem with Behe's argument isn't whether irreducible complexity, in and of itself (meaning whether or not complex systems are reducible), is a valid concept - because it most certainly is. The problem with Behe's argument is the claim that complex systems cannot evolve from simpler systems. Critics of Behe's argument are missing their target by a wide margin and, as a result, they are making it easier for Behe et al to 'debate the issues'. Let me use an analogy..in the debate about races in Homo sapien sapien, its like one side is arguing that genetic diversity proves the existence of race and the other side is arguing that genetic diversity doesn't exist. The real argument should be whether genetic diversity proves the existence of race. -Psychohistorian 16:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And all of this piffle has what exactly to do with the article? IC is defined by Behe/Dembski, anyone else's definitions have as much value as a warm bucket of hamster spit. Where you think you're going with this is unclear, but I can assure you it's OR.

BTW, it's Homo sapiens sapiens, sapien is meaningless in Latin. Also, Homo sapiens idaltu would be included (see basic anthropology). Quite honestly, if you don't know what you're on about, learn before speaking. •Jim62sch• 00:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

Removed some apparently superfluous words, removed comment on systems theory (irrelevant?) removed extremely POV text for a reference, moved apparently unreferenced reference into additional references. 124.243.178.110 03:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I've reverted the recent attempt to gloss over the controversial status of IC. I suggest long term contributors here keep an eye on the article for further attempts at whitewashing and weakening of criticisms of an argument that has almost zero support in the scientific community as documented in the Dover ruling. FeloniousMonk 19:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes as I feel that they blur the line between scientifically valid irreducible complexity and the religious usurpation of the term. I suggest that, in the future, people who are actually educated in systems science keep a close eye on this article so that the line is kept distinct.-Psychohistorian 11:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting each other without real discussion is not the right way to edit a controversial article like this. Please stop this edit war. I am restoring the article to the wording from before the start of the edit war. The disputed wording can be seen in this diff. Please discuss the changes and reach consensus here before changing the article again. If the edit war continues, the page may have to be protected from editing. I would rather that we not reach that point. Let's discuss the issues civilly. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

An edit war doesn't begin until, at least, someone reverts someone else's content. So, the article is now at the state it was before the edit war (except for the link to Behe which is outside of the debate). Other than that, I agree that further changes on the article on this subject need to be discussed before the edits are made.-Psychohistorian 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated in policy, "the term two or more contributors' repeated reverts of one another's edits to an article". As I said, the edit war didn't start until the first reversion.-Psychohistorian 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your take on edit-warring. Now, let's try to get something clear: This article is part of the Intelligent Design series, a series about a controversial form of creationism masquerading as science. If you wish to babble on about IC in some other discipline, create a disambig page and an article on your version of IC (assuming you can find any sources that meet WP:V, WP:RS and don't violate WP:NOR). Capisce? •Jim62sch• 00:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, what am I suppossed to discusss? FeloniousMonk is ignorant of systems science if he thinks pointing out that the concept of irreducible complexity, as used in systems science, is valid is a 'whitewash' of the religous argument. There are countless websites where he can go to educate himself on this subject. I did a web search and the very first site I hit was this one. So, its not like its hard to educate yourself. I'm not going to let this issue be ignored. I will edit it back after 24 hours. I'm not going to let the current article, which is based on flagrant ignorance, remain the way it is. -Psychohistorian 18:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the change, it appears to me that the core thesis of your edit is that "irreducible complexity" had a meaning independent of the "religious argument" which you attribute to Behe. Presumably, that meaning must have pre-dated Behe. Yet the first line of article you cite asserts that Behe coined the phrase and discusses the concept only in the context of Behe's assertions. My own google search for irreducible complexity failed to turn up any relevant hits in any context other than the one discussed in this article. I remain confused. Rossami (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that it is you who are confused. •Jim62sch• 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

An example of "irreducible complexity" being used outside of teleology indicating the distinction I've tried to make in this article between the two uses of the concept.-Psychohistorian 18:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that. It shows that the notion of complexities that are irreducible is used outside of the ID debate, a notion that is alreadly known, not challenged and may warrant mention here. But it does not in any way prove that Behe's notion Irreducible Complexity, that complexity requires a designer, is accepted by mainstream scientists and educators, something we need to be careful to avoid implying. FeloniousMonk 18:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"..something we need to be careful to avoid implying." And, I feel, my original edit (the one which you reverted and which started this issue) did a good job of avoiding doing that.-Psychohistorian 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is about Irreducible Complexity, the lynchpin argument in ID's argument for the existence of God, not the notion in Systems theory that systems can be distilled only so far. Your change to the intro was appropriate to the Systems theory article, not an ID article. Now you can add those changes to this article's Forerunners subsection of the History section where IC's relation to systems theory is detailed, or you could create a separate 'Irreducible complexity (systems theory)' article for it, or you create a section addressing IC, systems theory in the existing Systems theory article, but altering an article about an ID concept to read about systems theory is not going to fly. FeloniousMonk 19:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is called "Irreducible complexity". It is -not- called "Irreducible complexity as used by Behe et al". If it were called that, you'd have a point. If it were called that, I wouldn't be making my objection.-Psychohistorian 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is titled "Irreducible complexity" but it is not necessarily supposed to cover all uses of that term or variations of that concept. By convention here on Misplaced Pages, when an article's title may refer to more than one topic the unadorned title is given to the most common or popular usage. All other topics get a "disambiguation" title. The disambiguation is usually shown by putting the subject area after the title in parentheses - Pagename (subject area).
If you want to change the focus of the page to be first on the systems theory concept, we would have to be able to show that most readers searching on this term would be looking for the systems theory concept rather than for Behe's concept. Based on the evidence I can find, I doubt that's the case. I would endorse Felonious' suggestion. Improve the article's existing Forerunners section with a deeper discussion of the systems theory concept and provide an appropriate link to a more detailed article on systems theory for those who want to explore in that direction.
By the way, it would be helpful if you found a better cite than the one above. I have to admit that I wasn't very impressed by the paper's intellectual rigor. Just as a quick example, in Section 2 the authors attempt to define "systems thinking". Their definition is summed up in a sentence in the second paragraph which reads "We take systems thinking to be make up of the beliefs and perspectives embodied by the disciplines and practices that claim to embody systems thinking." That kind of circular reasoning seriously undercut my opinion of their credibility. Rossami (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the edit that has been disputed, you'll see that it is a very brief tap on the shoulder of systems science before going on to explain that intelligent design proponents use it in another way and explaining the difference between the two uses. It acts as a brief disambiguation.-Psychohistorian 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether to add the proper definition of irreducible complexity

I was not aware that consensus was ever reached. Just letting the issue drop is not consensus.-Psychohistorian 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon? •Jim62sch• 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Id respond if I knew what you are finding hard to understand.-Psychohistorian 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed to which project this page belongs? •Jim62sch• 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pages can belong to many projects. There is no doubt that one definition of IC is related to Creationism. But there is also no doubt that another definition - the definition which has merit in the scientific community - does not. -Psychohistorian 11:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Because noone is disputing this content any longer and no consensus has been reached regarding whether to put it in the article, I'll be restoring the disputed content. -Psychohistorian 11:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Flogging the flagellum

• what Behe says he means by irreducible complexity is that the flagellum could not work without about 40 protein components all organized in the right way.

But I'm still reading black box, so you'll have to forgive me. --Uncle Ed 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

From the Dover trial ruling, where Behe's argument for IC was reviewed against published scientific research:

We initially note that irreducible complexity as defined by Professor Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box and subsequently modified in his 2001 article entitled “Reply to My Critics,” appears as follows:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly 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 . . . Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. P-647 at 39; P-718 at 694.

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.” (P-718 at 695). Professor Behe specifically explained that “he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an alreadyfunctioning system,” but “he 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.” Id. In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect in future work;” however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect. Id.; 22:61-65 (Behe).

All versions of Darwin's Black Box still retain the various issues with Behe's claim detailed in the Dover ruling, as such it has to taken with a grain of salt. FeloniousMonk 21:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here Ed, this might help:

The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999). •Jim62sch• 00:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about systems

Quite simply, one of the core issues in this article is whether or not complex systems can evolve from simple systems. Noone has presented a meaningful distinction between such systems in biology and such systems composed of other things. Until someone does so, it is original research to act as if there is such a distinction. What that means is that proving that complex systems have evolved from simple systems is absolutely relevant and meaningful content in describing the issue. -Psychohistorian 12:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh no, it is not. Did you happen to notice the Intelligent Design Series template at the top? Did you think it was there for aesthetic reasons? Obviously, you are not reading the article, are you? Did you note that Behe's definition of IC as it relates to ID is a key component? If anything is OR here, it's your edits -- you are attempting to add your interpretation of IC, unrelated to ID, into the article. That dog ain't gonna hunt...hell, that dops ain't gettin' off the porch.

BTW, the global economic system is not irreducibly complex, it is dynamic and changes as needed, that dynamism, and those changes negating the concept irreduciblity. •Jim62sch• 12:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yes, it is. The fact that the Inteeligent Design template is on the page has no relevance to the central issue. Irreducible complexity, in the context of religion, claims that biological systems have irreducible complextiy and, consequently, cannot evolve from simpler systems. Therefore, the issue is whether complex systems can evolve from simple systems. And, by the way, all evolutionary systems are dynamic - including biological systems. There is nothing in the definition of irreducible complexity which states that irreducibly complex systems can't be dynamic (if they were, biological systems couldn't be irreducibly complex).-Psychohistorian 12:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And, incidentally, you are now guilty of breaking the three revert rule - something that can get you banned from Misplaced Pages. I suggest that you revert your last reversion. -Psychohistorian 12:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope dude, I reverted you twice. You really need to learn how to count. If you're feelin' froggy, though, jump -- file a 3RR vio. You're gonna have a hell of a time coming up with three diffs to match your asertion, but, hey, a little Keystone Kops humour is good for the soul.

Also, you are engaging in OR with your pronouncements re IC, in fact, your having a bit of a problem with the concept of irreducible from what I can see. •Jim62sch• 13:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by the American Society for Microbiology on Evolution

For the editors of this page. This linkis a statement by the American Society for Microbiology on Evolution and also mentions irreducible complexity. It may be of use as a supporting reference in the article.--LexCorp 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, depending on how and where you were planning on using it. The key sentence is this The use of the supposed "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum as an argument to endow nonscientific concepts with what appears to be legitimacy, is spurious and not based on fact. In other words, it is debunking the intelligent design concept of irreducible complexity. •Jim62sch• 13:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled on a page that might have relevance here

As this is a contentious article, I figured I'd bring the point to the talk page first. this talk origins post references some theory that appears relevant. I was considering adding some of the references mentioned as points in the criticisms section. Anyone want to indicate if this is a good or bad idea? i kan reed 09:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a beginner at editing Misplaced Pages, so excuse any faux pas on my part. I've just added a few lines on the "forerunners" - it seemed to me to purely factual, so I didn't see a need to enter into a discussion on the point - and I was contemplating putting in another couple of lines on Muller - something like this:

In the early 20th century Hermann Muller wrote about "interlocking" biological features as a consequence to be expected of evolution.

The article that you're mentioned refers to the first article, but I think that the second one (although not accessible online) is also worth mentioning.

Muller as a forerunner of "irreducible complexity" has been mentioned several times. I think that it was H. Allen Orr who first brought it up in a review of "Darwin's Black Box" in the Boston Review, online at , Muller is also mentioned in Mark Isaak's extensive "Index of Creationist Claims" CB200 .

Tom S.

Be very careful with the "forerunner" appellation -- Muller's premise is entirely different and that must be made clear. In Muller's version, interlocking complexity is the result of evolution, not, as is irreducible complexity, it's antithesis. Also, while this could fit into the article is added properly, there is no proof that I've seen that Behe knew of the existence of Muller's concept, so we need to be careful not to say the Behe borrowed the concept, or otherwise relied upon it, absent sources meeting WP:V and WP:RS.

BTW Tom, sign your post with 4 tildes ~~~~ and your name and link to your user/talk pages will come up. •Jim62sch• 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. (I hope I'll get the hang of this soon.) First of all, I hadn't thought about how my earlier remarks about Gassendi and others could be read as suggesting that Behe was following up on their ideas. Therefore, I think that it's appropriate to clarify what I had written. I suggest that something like this would be appropriate -

Although there is no indication that these earliest forerunners had any influence on the development of the concept of irreducible complexity, 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.

OK?

As far as Muller is concerned, perhaps a few extra words would make this clearer -

Rather than being an argument against evolution, in the early 20th century Hermann Muller wrote about "interlocking" biological features as a consequence to be expected of evolution.

TomS TDotO 10:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that my attempt to caution the reader that "forerunners" may not have influence on later developments was considered "speculative" and not concise. I'm not going to argue about that. Certainly I will admit to not having the best writing style, and I must concede that I didn't get my point across. I hope that my latest revision of remarks on Muller will be better received. For your comments before I try them, here they are:

], 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.<ref>, especially pages 463-464.</ref> :''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.''<ref>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.</ref>

TomS TDotO 15:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparison between irreducible complexity in systems theory and in intelligent design

Something needs to be done about the statement in the introduction: "Intelligent design proponents believe that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve from simple systems, while systems researchers have identified systems which have done exactly this" (or, in its previous form: "Intelligent design proponents claim irreducibly complex systems can't evolve from simple systems. Systems researchers can point to systems which have done exactly that."

In either case - by simple application of logic to the sentences - the sentence states that ID proponents say that N cannot occur, and then states that it is a fact that N occurs; the only possible logical resolution of which is "Intelligent design proponents are wrong". Now, I believe that, and probably most of you do too, but I can't see that it fits with the Neutral Point of View policy. If the issue was that simple, the debate and the article wouldn't exist.

I think that the problem occurs in that we are presenting as a fact that emergence as understood by systems theorists is exactly equivalent to the evolution of irreducibly complex biological structures as understood by systems theorists; and that therefore the phenomena observed by systems theorists necessarily require the possibility of the evolution of irreducible complexity in the precise form that intelligent design proponents dispute. This isn't referenced or expanded on, and the note at the top of the article says that this article does not concern emergence; meanwhile, the Emergence article states that emergence is controversial and scientists disagree on how it should be defined and what constitutes it; so I'm not sure that this is a necessarily valid inference and it probably constitutes original research.

Any suggestions for a more neutral drafting? TSP 12:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That has more to do with a problem with the Emergence article, not with this article. The Emergence article doesn't have any inline citations for reasons which I'm unclear about. However, a careful reading of the Emergence article makes it clear that what is debatable about emergence is specifically what qualifies as an emergent property, not whether emergence exists. I find it rather curious, also, that that article doesn't provide any verifiable sources for the claim that what is an emergent property is questionable (which suggests that -that- article is making an unverifiable claim). But, having said that, the debate (at least within the scientific community) doesn't exist. The debate (within the society) does exist, but that is because society judges the weight of issues on other criteria than whether or not something is objectively true. It is because the debate exists within society that the article exists.-Psychohistorian 13:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. So is the point that the scientific community agrees that "evolution of irreducible complexity" is the same thing as "emergence", and that the phenomenon exists? If so, that's fine: we can assert that, and it should be easy to provide citations for. The problem is that at the moment we assert it as a fact, with no citation, after identifying a group that does not agree with it. For most readers, saying "the scientific community agrees n" will give them the same impression as "n is true"; but it's a statement we can back up. TSP 16:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a number of such sources, here's a couple:

• Per Bak, How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality, Copernicus Books, 1996, ISBN 0-387-94791-4, ISBN 0-387-98738-X.
• John Holland, Emergence: From Chaos to Order Addison-Wesley, 1997 ISBN 0-201-14943-5, ISBN 0-7382-0142-1
• Steven Johnson, Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software, 2001, ISBN 0-684-86875-X ISBN 0-684-86876-8
• Tom De Wolf, Tom Holvoet, Emergence Versus Self-Organisation: Different Concepts but Promising When Combined, In Engineering Self Organising Systems: Methodologies and Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 3464, pp 1-15, 2005, (download here)
• Christian Prehofer, Christian Bettstetter, Self-Organization in Communication Networks: Principles and Design Paradigms, IEEE Communications Magazine, July 2005.
• Ricard V. Solé and Jordi Bascompte, Selforganization in Complex Ecosystems, Princeton U. Press, 2006.

FeloniousMonk 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence

The article currently contains the sentence:

On some occasions, structures once believed to be irreducibly complex, have later been explained biologically.

This doesn't make sense as the system, whether irreducibly complex or not, is biological either way. Hackwrench 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Infinite regress

I feel that there is one section missing in the criticism department - an argument put forward by Dawkins, Bennet and many others: IC used as an argument for an "ultimate" designer inevitable results in an infinite regress. The ID model is a top-down construction with something more complex creating something less complex: i.e man designs watch, god designs man. However, you are then left with the question of who designed god, and then who designed the designer who designed god etc.. In short, you'll have an infinite regress of irreducibly complex designers. If you on the other hand accept that the designer can be more simple than the item designed, well, then you've shot down your own theory.

Given that it's called "intelligent" design, it is implied that the designer is not a simple entity, but a very complex one - much more complex than the entities it has designed. Thus if the design by such a designer is irreducibly complex, then the designer must be irreducibly complex and according to their own theory must have a designer.

Any objections to adding a subsection to the criticism section explaining this argument? --Denoir 10:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. It's a notable arguement. However, I'd be inclined to put it somewhat low on the page: The scientific rebuttal should come before the philosophic. Adam Cuerden 15:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Status of IC

The ruling in the Dover trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) discredited IC as a method and the claims of both Behe and his peers that it is a meaningful and useful tool. An accurate and complete article needs to reflect this. I've noted this in the article and added cites to the relevant parts of the Dover trial ruling: , FeloniousMonk 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's your personal interpretation of the Dover trial. Personal interpretation may not be written in wikipedia articles (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR). You may write opinions discussed in relevant sources, if you source them and if you qualify them with the name of the person who represents these opinions; if it is not something all sides of a controversial topic agree upon. --Rtc 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. Read the ruling. FeloniousMonk 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you're way over the WP:3RR limit. FeloniousMonk 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try to spread the false claim that I hit 3RR limit; I did not. I added the source in a different way, without giving a personal interpretation of the court's opinion. The court did not rule that IC is discredited; and even if it had done that doesn't give you permission to claim in Misplaced Pages that it's actually discredited.--Rtc 19:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert blindly, but see that A) I added the source, just in a different way. B) I added some improvements, such as removing weasel words, C) I added some sources, such as the Adami paper. --Rtc 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, please do not edit war. I see you were blocked for violating 3RR, so please use the time off to reconsider how you intend to contribute here. FeloniousMonk 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Discredited

Here's the direct quote from the source, "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." -Psychohistorian 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try if there is some better way to include it. --Rtc 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

While IC isn't supported by any data, the "discredited" attribute is a bit vague and probably too NPOV for the definition. Something along the lines of

"Irreducible complexity is a hypothesis that states that certain biological systems.."

follwed by a statement that it is unsupported by data and not considered to be a credible hypothesis by the scientific community. If you for instance look at the Flat Earth article you can see something similar.--Denoir 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, call a spade a spade. Wishy-washy statements in cases where there's clear consensus against something seem to be giving undue weight to the pseudoscience, in my opinion. Adam Cuerden 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight would be if it was presented as a mainstream theory, which it is not - most of the article is about how it isn't scientific. For good form however an article should start with a definition and the definition of IC does not include it being discredited. In the same way if you look at say Intelligent design, Creationism or Homeopathy you'll see a definition of it first - not what the scientific consensus is. The same goes for any other field. In the George W. Bush article it doesn't say "George W. Bush is the unpopular president of..". The arguments for or against something should come after the definition. If you include criticism or support in the definition, then nothing meaningful can follow and consensus will be impossible.

Second, saying that it is a "discredited" hypothesis is very questionable as there is no such thing as "discredited" in the scientific language. The hypothesis isn't falsifiable (which makes it unsuitable as a scientific theory, but still perfectly valid as a hypothesis) and in the end experimental science can't prove or disprove anything - it can only say that a theory is supported or unsupported by data. Yes, IC is a load of rubbish, but that has to be expressed correctly or the arguments against it will be just an opinion. --Denoir 00:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A thorough and clear analysis of irreducible complexity and its relation to the scientific community was conducted by in the Dover trial, and its ruling is unambiguous, notable, and relevant:

• " 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."
• "the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980"

I don't agree with your points, but since we already have a credible source that supports the article, whether I agree or not is unimportant; we'll just quote the Dover ruling. FeloniousMonk 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, a legal ruling in a US court is hardly a suitable reference. I can't even begin to say how inappropriate that is on so many different levels. An American court has as much legitimacy on science issues as a religious text or a comic book: none whatsoever. Or do you suggest we use quotes from the Scopes trial to define evolution?

In addition, none of the quotes you provide there are a definition of IC, which is what the article needs to start with and which is what we are discussing here. I'm not arguing against the contents of the article, but the first sentence and the inappropriate usage of "discredited" there. --Denoir 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In all cases, we need to state only what we can source. A legal case is not a sufficient source to state that a theory "is discredited"; it is only a sufficient source to state that the theory "has been described as 'discredited' by a legal ruling", or similar. To most readers, these will have the same impact; but in one case, we are stating that Misplaced Pages believes something, in the other case, we are saying exactly what an external source says. To any but the most credulous reader, it shold have more impact to specifically state what is stated by what source, rather than take it on the non-existent authority of Misplaced Pages with general references. TSP 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea that we can only use phrases like 'has been described as' is not entirely correct. If it applied then absolutely any statement anywhere would carry that disclaimer. It is the same style of argument that suggests that scientific statements should be prefixed by 'it is thought' or 'some believe'. Scientists are fallible, so there is always the possibility that stating 'x is so' will later turn out to be incorrect. That does not mean we need to double the length of every article with this sort of padding. If a solid respectable source states something we can cite it and use it to support the statement without disclaimer. FM is correct in saying we should cite the ruling. Note that in this case IC is presented by its proponents as scientific - therefore it is entirely appropriate to identify what the scientific consensus on the subject is - indeed this is crucial to beginning to understand the concept. The Dover ruling summarises that consensus. If it's tremendously important we could simply cite the position of leading scientific organisations on the subject, rather than the ruling, but this is simply a roundabout way of ending up at the same place. --Davril2020 02:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TSP and Denoir. "Discredited" should *in particular* not be used in the opening sentence of the article. And I don't think that the Dover ruling is good enough evidence to call the theory discredited in any case. (Like TSP and Denoir, I am in the awkward position of arguing "in favor" of a theory that I think is unscientific at best.) Phiwum 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tricky. Well, we differ in opinion, but noone's being irrational, so perhaps the sensible thing is to just put out a Request for comment and agree to be bound by the decision? Adam Cuerden 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that we can't reach consensus internally then sure, I see no problem in an RfC. We do need to make it clear in the RfC that nobody is claiming that IC has any scientific support or value. In addition we need to be clear on what we disagree on. From the comments above there seem to be two separate questions

--

1. If the opening sentence should contain normative terms such as "discredited" or if it should be a plain definition of the IC hypothesis without any comments on what the scientific community (or anybody else) thinks of it. (All are in agreement that it should be clearly stated in the article that IC is rejected by the scientific community - there is no disagreement there)

2. If the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction over the global scientific community ;-) Or put differently: If the legal findings of the Dover trial are suitable as the primary reference for defining the scientific consensus on the issue. (As opposed to using the statements of prominent scientists and peer-reviewed, published articles and books as primary references. This may of course include statements that scientists made at the Dover trial.)

--

Would that be a correct description of the difference in opinion? --Denoir 04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right, though 2. is a little snarky. On the point of 2, this might have relevance. I do think an RfC might help - we seem about equally split, and fairly sharply divided - somewhat awkward when you're trying to reach consensus. Luckily, we're all sensible, which is a big help. Adam Cuerden 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, are we equally divided? If I'm in the minority, I really should concede gracefully. Perhaps a quick poll first? Adam Cuerden 05:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the consensus reached on articles like Pseudoscience and Astrology was that "discredited" or "unscientific", etc. are not of the essence of the topic, they are properties about the topic. That a theory is scientifically discredited is important to the article, but the purpose of the first sentence is to state what it is, not evaluations about it, which cannot come until after it is described. A stark example is that of astrology, where it was a major, not discredited set of beliefs before the modern age; astrology did not itself change, views and acceptance of it did. The description in the first paragraph of that article is accurate regardless of the age in which it is read, or who reads it, because it describes what astrology is. —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well put, that's exactly the way I see it. --Denoir 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the recent past, IC has been described as

1. a discredited idea
2. a controversial idea
3. Michael Behe's idea

I believe that it's pretty clear that no. 3 isn't meaningful - while Behe was the major proponent, it has deeper intellectual roots, and it has had other proponents. The second option is questionable - IC isn't controversial from a scientific perspective - there is no scientific controversy around IC, it's been rejected. The third option is "discredited". This is true. As for sourcing - it isn't a matter of giving a court authority on this matter. Rather, it's a matter of trusting Jones to summarise the information presented to him in a reasonable fashion. Jones is also an impartial source. His lack of an agenda here makes his summary credible. Other sources are possible, but there is nothing wrong with using Jones's ruling as a source. Guettarda 06:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since no comments have been added for a while and there are clearly two factions, so I suggest we go ahead with a vote or an RfC. --Denoir 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No need. It should be removed. Put up the arguments for discrediting it in the article (which they're already there) and let the reader see that it is discredited (or not). Doesn't belong in the opening. Yes, I read the above arguments. --*Spark* 15:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. The Dover ruling clearly states: "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." We have a district level federal court ruling saying Behe's notion is refuted and widely rejected; it's tough to get anymore discredited than that. Clearly "discredited" is accurate and properly sourced. FeloniousMonk 19:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No. There are several fallacies in your statement. First of all if it has been discredited or not has nothing to do with the definition of the hypothesis. The "discredited" property is not part of the definition of IC. When Behe starts a speech about it, he is not going to say "Let me tell you a bit about the discredited IC hypothesis..". A scientist refuting an alleged example of IC won't have "discredited" in the definition either. It may be discredited in the eyes of the scientific community (although it was never taken seriously in the first place), but that is just one attribute of it and not intrinsic.

Second, an American court hardly has jurisdiction over the global scientific community. What it can say is that in the opinion of the American legal system IC is not a valid scientific argument (for teaching ID). Or do you suggest we also suggest we take into account what 'modern' interpretations of Sharia law have to say about the theory of evolution?

Finally, what does "discredited" mean anyway? It was never accepted by the scientific community. It hasn't been generally disproved as it is not a falsifiable theory - it just vaguely postulates the existence of irreducibly complex biological organisms. The various examples that IC proponents have given have been shot down, but the hypothesis as a whole hasn't and can't be. What we can say is that it is completely unsupported by data, that their reasoning pointless and that it is extremely questionable from a philosophical point of view.

You may say that cold fusion was discredited, but this did not have any standing in the scientific community to begin with. The only reason why it was brought up was because of religious people pushing their ID agenda - and they have political backing. IC is pseudoscience that has been politically inflated. The proponents of ID certainly don't think it is discredited as they are quite immune to real scientific arguments. So how is IC discredited? It implies some form of change - that it once upon a time was considered as a valid theory, but then it was discredited. That's not the case. The scientific community considered it to be pseudoscience and still think that and the ID bunch haven't changed their mind either. --Denoir 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV Giving equal validity tells us that "the Misplaced Pages neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views" and WP:NPOV Pseudoscience says "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." And since as you acknowlege (along with the Dover ruling) none of the scientific community accepts IC and since the Dover ruling already says "Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large" and nearly every professional scientific body has rejected ID and its constituent arguments, of which IC is the most notable, I'd say it is it is very safe to say IC is discredited. The point on which this turns is not that IC is discredited soley because the Dover ruling says it is but that the Dover ruling merely affirms previously existing verifiable facts (as you noted). FeloniousMonk 06:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be fine, but the difference is describing the principle, fundamental essence of the thing as "discredited"; that's not a fundamental essence of anything. The reader finds it is "discredited" before even knowing what it is. —Centrx→talk • 07:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That the concept is discredited can be described in the article. It shouldn't be in the opening. As stated before, see Flat Earth for a parallel. If taken to RfC we will see the same result. Monk, how about letting this one go? It'll still be covered in the article. --*Spark* 12:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, the issue is what is the most accurate wording for the lead. Of the three that have been used recently, this is the most accurate. That doesn't mean we have to stick with it, but it does mean that we should replace it with more accurate wording. Any suggestions? Guettarda 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

FM: Equal validity??? Eh, equal validity would be if in the article support for and arguments against the hypothesis were presented as equal. Anyway, this is getting fairly pointless - you have not addressed a single objection to the inclusion of discredited in the first sentence. I suggest we do the RfC - the outcome is pretty obvious as this article does not live in a vacuum and for just about every other article on a pseudo-scientific topic the decision has been made to exclude such attributes from the definition. There is nothing special about this one and it should follow the same format and rules as the rest. --Denoir 07:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that "discredited" is an intrinsic part of IC. IC has been proposed as proof of ID. However, it can never be a test of design, only of evoluion. It's worth contrasting it with Dembski's ideas - while SC is flawed, it still attempts to search for design. It's conceivable that one could correct the flaws in Dembski's work. IC, on the other hand, can never be corrected. In the best case scenario it can only say that present understanding of evolution is incomplete, it can never be evidence for design. In addition, it's impossible to test for IC. Behe and Minnich admitted these flaws in the Kitzmiller case.

The Kitzmiller case is fundamental here because Behe and Minnich were under oath. Scientific journals can publish critiques, but they can't force proponents of an idea to admit the obvious flaws. Court cases can. Jones' ruling summarises what was presented in the case. Thus, it's an important source of the fact that IC is "discredited". Guettarda 12:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Something can't be discredited before it has been defined. It would be circular logic otherwise. Anyway, I have added an RfC. --Denoir 15:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

IC hasn't been defined? What are you talking about? Guettarda 15:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is very elementary logic, not rocket science. If your definition of IC contains that it is discredited then any further discussion about if it is discredited or not would be meaningless as it was already defined as discredited. If it was discredited per definition it wouldn't have been borught up in court or discussed in length in this article. The IC hypothesis was rejected by the scientific community after looking at the IC hypothesis - the rejection was not included in the hypothesis --Denoir 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just an on looker here, noticed the jury is still out of this subject. First I'll share my first impression of the article. The first sentence does completely throw off the article. It seemed as if it was an article about the discrediting of IC rather than IC and all the information about it. This kinda gave me the outward impression of an opinion or a "spun" article. I think the article would be more receptive to people who don't even know what IC was if they could read the description then learn of its history. I don't know about you but I like something to be described before I accept any opinions or facts concerning it. This is just my outside observation here.

Secondly and I believe to be more importantly, what would the IC article have looked like prior to the Dover case? Denoir and others are right the article should conform like any other with a description followed by more information. Let's not assume people need to be told up front about the current scientific position on something they may know absolutely about, that comes off as suggestive. --71.192.88.79 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Responses to RfC

Remove "discredited". Reasons:

1. "Discredited" should not be part of the opening sentence. It does is not define irreducible complexity, nor does it describe it. See wikipedia:Define and describe.

The define and describe rule states that:

"If its subject is amenable to definition, an article should give a concise, conceptually sound definition in its opening sentence and then proceed with a description. "

1. The attribute "discredited" leads to an Over-narrow definition. A system can be irreducibly complex even if this property is not discredited.
2. It is not irreducible complexity itself that is discredited by some people, but rather the attribution of this property to living systems. The disambiguation note at the top of the paragraph does not remedy this. In fact, the whole article should be remaned to Irreducible complexity of living systems.  Andreas  15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"It is not irreducible complexity itself that is discredited by some people, but rather the attribution of this property to living systems"

This article is about IC in the context of intelligent design. It's clearly explained. Maybe you should read the text at the top of the article:

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.

Guettarda 15:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

""Discredited" should not be part of the opening sentence. It does is not define irreducible complexity, nor does it describe it."

How not? You don't need to quote the entire page you linked to - how about explaining how it applies to this issue?

"The attribute "discredited" leads to an Over-narrow definition." A system can be irreducibly complex even if this property is not discredited."

How is this an "over-narrow definition"?

"A system can be irreducibly complex even if this property is not discredited."

I have no idea what you mean here. What systems are irreducibly complex? Apart from that, the sentence makes no sense overall. Guettarda 16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that the concept is advocated as scientific, I believe it is relevent to identify that it has been discredited by scientists early on. --Davril2020 16:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disagrees that it should be said early on that the concept has been rejected by the scientific community. However, don't you think that the article should describe what the concept is, before saying that it is rejected? --Denoir 16:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If it did not puport to be scientific that would be acceptable. However since it claims to be scientific the description is either going to have to state it is presented as a scientific argument without comment, or state that the argument is discredited. --Davril2020 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

IC isn't falsifiable and thus by some schools of philosophy of science isn't considered to be a scientific theory to being with. Either way, it is expressed in such a way that it cannot be disproven. All that can be said is that it is unsupported by all the data that we have. Ultimately it doesn't matter: the hypothesis was rejected after it was presented - rejection isn't included in the hypothesis. This article is on the hypothesis and the first sentence should be the definition of the hypothesis. This is a pattern that has been follwed for all other articles on pseudoscience and it is difficult to see why this one should be an exception. --Denoir 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about what schools of philosophy of science accept unfalsifiable "theories" (forgive my ignorance, but this seems rather odd to me). It's incorrect to say that "IC is unsupported by the data we have now" - as a scientific hypothesis (falsifiable or unfalsifiable, if such a thing exists) IC is intrinsically unable do what it purports to do, which is to show evidence of design. IC can only address questions about evolution, not about design. Since it cannot do this, it is fundamentally and fatally flawed...and has been discredited (quite effectively, by the admissions made by ID proponents at the Kitzmiller trial). Guettarda 18:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The primary school of thought against Popper's falsifiability criteria is the one of Thomas Khun, which is mainstream if not predominant. You can read more about it in the criticism section of the article on falsifiability. I don't agree with them, but that is besides the point. As for IC not being able to support ID, that is undeniably true, but again that's not the definition of IC - it is the purpose of it. What it is not capable of doing and how flawed it is is independent of the definition of it. You need to define what 'it is before you say that it is wrong. --Denoir 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • This is a mischaracterisation of the dispute. Three descriptors have been proposed - "controversial" (which is inaccurate, since there is no scientific controversy, simply dismissal), "Behe's theory" (which misses the broader context) and "discredited" (which is accurate, but may not be the best choice of words). 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, if you look at the comments above, you will see that nobody else but Guettarda thinks that the dispute is about the choice of descriptor. --Denoir 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really? The what was the edit war about? Or is this an esoteric discussion unrelated to the article? Guettarda 18:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a completely unrelated discussion to the edit wars. I brought up the removal of the "discredited" and wasn't aware of any edit war - and there have been no edits related to this discussion. We're discussing if "discredited" should be kept in the first sentence and as a secondary debate if the conclusions of the Dover trial can be used to say what the scientific community thinks about IC. Nothing more and nothing less. --Denoir 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, what edit wars? I don't see any edit warring. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to Rtc's edit war, in which he kept replacing "discredited" with "Behe's". Since Denoir has failed to come up with an alternative, but wants "discredited" expunged from the article, it's fair to say that he is arguing in favour of Rtc's version. Guettarda 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I don't know how to put this in more simple terms: no, that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the removal of "discredited" not about replacing it with something else. Get it? --Denoir 21:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Short of deleting the article, you can't remove something and replace it with nothing. You have to replace it with something. There is a discussion about the wording of the lead. Words convey meaning. You can't remove a word without changing the meaning of the sentance. If you removal factual information from the lead, you change its meaning. Saying "this word shouldn't be here" is not enough. You can't change the sentance into a less accurate statement. That degrades article quality and lowers article quality. I have no problem with replacing the current lead with a more accurate one (I have said so over and over). I do have a problem with your campaign to expunge uncomplimentary material from the lead. That's whitewashing and violates NPOV. Guettarda 22:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. So if I after "discredited" add "pink" so it says "the discredited pink argument", then you wouldn't remove "pink" but replace with a more accurate word... Please, get real. And read these two threads - you are the only one arguing for replacing "discredited" with another word. All the others here are debating if we should keep "discredited" or remove it. --Denoir 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For any RFC respondents formulating opinions, they will need to take into account the following source which is already provided in the article: "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. "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Any line of reasoning that ignores or dismisses this fact will not fly. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that if we go by the Dover trial, we certainly shouldn't include the "discredited" part. The trial concluded that ID (including IC) is not science and hence shouldn't be taught as science. Since it has been declared that it is not a scientific hypothesis then what the scientific community has to say about it is fairly irrelevant. It is like saying that Winnie the Pooh has been discredited because the scientific community doesn't support the idea of talking bears. The argument that Behe & Co think that it is a scientific theory doesn't mean much or change the nature of it. Hence if we accept the Dover ruling that IC is not a scientific hypothesis then we cannot say that IC is a false or discredited scientific hypothesis. --Denoir 19:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What we are defining is a discredited argument. I fail to see the issue. In the article for R'lyeh, the opening sentence is "R'lyeh is a fictional city ..." not "R'lyeh is a city blah blah blah. Oh, and its fictional. " KillerChihuahua 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the city was fictional per definition - the author never claimed it to be real. In the case of IC, the proponents claimed that it was real and then the hypothesis was discredited. If you wish to compare to other articles, you should check out similar discredited stuff such as Intelligent design, Astrology, Homeopathy etc --Denoir 19:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and those articles if anything need more work to make them NPOV - especially astrology. The bottom line is that the argument is discredited both in the scientific and legal communities - to not make tha clear would lead to serious POV/undue weight issues. JoshuaZ 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We are making it perfectly clear in the article. The article should however start with a definition. The definition of IC does not it include that it has been rejected - otherwise every subsequent rejection of it will be pointless. The argument has been discredited both both in the scientific and legal communities. The opening sentence should state what that argument is. --Denoir 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you come to the conclusion that "subsequent rejection of it is pointless"? The lead is meant to summarise the article as a whole. See WP:LEAD. Information in the lead section is going to be repeated and developed throughout the article. What do you have against accurately characterising the subject in the lead? Guettarda 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead section is not the same as the opening sentence. The fact that irreducable complexity is refuted as an argument by the scientific community should be mentioned in the lead section, but not in the opening sentence.  Andreas  21:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How's this for a rewrite. Refs are not active, same as what's on main page:

--*Spark* 22:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It could use a bit of a copy edit - the first word or two of sentences tend to repeat things from the previous sentence, e.g. "The idea is used" - I prefer to combine directly related sentences like that.

Irreducible complexity is an argument for the intelligent design of life that claims certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors. It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community. It is related to a concept of the same name in systems theory, however, while intelligent design proponents argue that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve from simple systems, systems researchers have identified systems which have done exactly this (see Emergence for more on this).

It could use a smoother working in of the systems theory concepts, but.... Adam Cuerden 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Aren't irreducibly complex systems by definition..um..irreducibly complex - i.e they cannot be reduced to a simpler system? If a system has evolved from a simpler system, it can't be irreducibly complex. Or am I missing something? Anyway, I'm ok with both versions of the rewrite - I somewhat prefer spark's version in terms of style, but I'm ok either way. --Denoir 02:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The game of "Jenga".

Someone should add in the article that the game of "Jenga" provides a perfect example of how irreducible complex systems can form via additions,deletions and alterations of prior genetic material. In the game of Jenga if logs are taken out and put elsewhere then you reach a point where if any single log is removed then it would destroy the tower.Wikidudeman 09:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely the logs on top can always be safely removed. I guess that's against the rules?

Phiwum 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I do believe it's against the rules.Wikidudeman 17:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a notable source that presents this example, it's Original Research. It doesn't obviously appear to be a very good illustration of evolution of irreducibly complex structures - a Jenga tower could almost always be rebuilt step by step from the ground up, and therefore is not irreducibly complex. Also, a Jenga tower serves no purpose, so doesn't illustrate the crucial aspect that evolutionary steps need to be beneficial in order to emerge by natural selection; and it is built by conscious effort of the players, so doesn't illustrate the evolution aspect either. TSP 17:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree about your points concerning original research, but your other points aren't supported. Where does Behe et al claim that irreducible complexity requires that a given process can't be repeated? How do you get that a Jenga tower serves no purpose (that sounds like original research of its own). While a Jenga tower is built by conscious effort, it is not planned ahead of time. Where does being built by conscious effort, but not being planned either, get excluded from evolution in a system? After all, the world economic system also evolved and was done so by conscious effort.-Psychohistorian 18:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is relevent or necessary, especially considering all the facts and sources. It would only serve to confuse or mislead. IC and Jenga are apples and oranges in that the idea of IC does not have any imposed rules, where as Jenga does. Jenga's tower doesn't serve any function (that I know of) where are the examples used in IC do have function. Maybe I'm wrong about the comparison, but either way it's completely unnecessary. --71.192.88.79 12:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To Ec5618

I've already brought this up on your talk page about our reverting, but I see you have now made a third revert. I'm not going to revert it again, but could you please change it back yourself to how the page was before you made your third revert. Mathmo 13:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Kindly, I will leave the article to reflect verifiable truth. Behe has had to admit that the argument of irreducible complexity, as it currently stands, does not work as either an argument in favour of intelligent design, nor as an argument against evolution. As such, it is not a valid argument, and, if it were more generally formulated, might even be a logical fallacy. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial concluded, among other things, 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. 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".

I'm sorry, but there is no reason to remove the word 'discredited' from the article. -- Ec5618 13:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a reason, WP:3RR#I.27ve_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F. Restore it back to how it was before you reverted it and don't worry about it, if your viewpoint that your article really is a NPOV of how things are then somebody else should do the reverting for you in no time at all. Mathmo 14:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for other editors is hardly necessary, when arguments trump numbers. The word 'discredited' appears for a number of good reasons, as I have tried to explain to you. Indeed, as I mentioned, Behe has had to admit that the argument of irreducible complexity, as it currently stands, does not work as either an argument in favour of intelligent design, nor as an argument against evolution.

I'm sorry, but the fact that the argument has been discredited is verifiable, and as such, there is no need to remove that information. Indeed, one of the most relevant pieces of information on this subject is that even its 'creator' has had to admit that it falls apart when scrutinised.

I have not violated 3RR. And please, let's keep this discussion confined to a single talk page. Ec5618 14:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"is hardly necessary"?? Are you telling me you can ignore official policy? Not so, this is not a good enough reason for you to be going against it. Neither do you show any signs of remorse and that you wouldn't go ahead and break WP:3RR again in the future just as easily. Mathmo 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read policy, as you seem to misunderstand it. In any case, it might be a good idea to discuss the article, as opposed to percieved slights. -- Ec5618 14:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you were right as I've said before already about 3RR. Anyway... getting back to the article (got side tracked for moment thinking there was a bigger issues at stake of official policy being broken. But no, I was wrong! It does happen from time to time....). Not fully convinced yet that Behe himself doesn't believe in Irreducible Complexity at all, but you have raised enough doubt I'll look into it some more when I get up. Mathmo 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Last stable version?

Rossami reverted my edit to what she claims is the "last stable version", took a look back through the recent history and I saw that I'm not the only one who has been removing discredited from it's NPOV. For that matter has there ever been a stable version? Doubt it. Mathmo 03:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First, please don't make incorrect assumptions about gender. Second, while this has been a debated point, the specific use of "discredited" in the header was the version immediately prior to this latest edit war. According to our precedents and practices, that makes it the "last stable version" for the purposes this debate. I am neutral on this particular style question but want you both to solve it through discussion and weight of argument here on the Talk page, not through continued (or resumed) edit-warring. Rossami (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Discredited" came from a contested edit added on Dec. 2. There seems to have been some acceptance on the talk page for the following version by Adam_Cuerden:

Irreducible complexity is an argument for the intelligent design of life that claims certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors. It has been rejected by...

Instead of the article itself making some ultimate judgement about the validity of IC, this version simply states that most of the scientific community rejects it. HKT 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks HKT, you seem to have written well the points I was making. Namely this the addition of "discredited" goes back a lot further than Rossami, and thus should be reverted to a far early version than the one s/he did. Also you made the point how article shouldn't make an "ultimate judgement about the validity of IC". Lastly I'm sorry about the gender if I made a mistake, thought I knew a girl called "Rossami". Must have just been something similar. Mathmo 16:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. We have a notable, definitive and reliable source, the Dover ruling, saying that "the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's" and "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." As long as the Dover ruling stands and is not contradicted by another equally weighty source then the article will continue to reflect IC's current status. FeloniousMonk 18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Discredited theories: A survey

A quick survey to see what other discredited theories use to say so. Quotes are from the start of the lead, except where the mention comes significantly later, in which case I prefixed with "..."

Recapitulation theory: Mentioned in second sentence of lead: The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, is a theory in biology which attempts to explain apparent similarities between humans and other animals. First espoused in 1866 by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, the theory has been discredited in its absolute form ("strong recapitulation"), although recognized as being perhaps partly fruitful.

Geocentric model: Paragraph Four: ...The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age; from the late 16th century onward it was gradually replaced by the heliocentric model of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. Today, geocentric cosmology survives in the work of some creationist fundamentalist Protestant elements of Christianity, as well as literary treatments within alternate history science fiction.

Lamarckism: First sentence: Lamarckism or Lamarckian evolution is a theory put forward by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, based on heritability of acquired characteristics, the once widely accepted but now superseded idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring.

Phlogiston theory: First sentence: The phlogiston theory is an obsolete scientific theory of combustion. It was developed by J. J. Becher late in the 17th century and was extended and popularized by Georg Ernst Stahl, who (correctly, but for the wrong reasons) declared the rusting of metal to be a combustion process.

Spontaneous generation: N/A (redirects to, of all the awful places, Abiogenesis!)

Alchemy: Not really mentioned.

Certainly, it's not unheard of elsewhere to say a theory is discredited/no longer in use. Adam Cuerden 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

1. pages 463-464 in Hermann J. Muller: Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors, Genetics 1918 3: 422-499,.
2. pages 271-272 in Herman J. Muller: Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics, Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 4(3) 1939, 261-280.
3. 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
4. The Chicken or the Egg
5. pages 463-464 in Hermann J. Muller: Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors, Genetics 1918 3: 422-499,.
6. pages 271-272 in Herman J. Muller: Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics, Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 4(3) 1939, 261-280.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Unassessed Creationism articles
• High-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles