Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

Not quite. If you can remove a part, then it wasn't part of the irreducibly complex system. Both Behe and Dembski make that clear in their definitions. As Dembski wrote in the definition you quoted: "each part in the set is indispensable". The classic example is a mouse trap. It can't function at all when ANY one of its parts is removed; each is indispensable. But you can add parts to a mouse trap that aren't part of its irreducibly complex base

Yes. I don't think "the exact definition of IC is not fixed". If it wasn't fixed, then the whole concept would be useless. Anybody could prove anything just by adjusting the definition of IC in any way they want.

That's the point at which the system is irreducibly complex. A mouse trap might have a bell on it, or a battery-powered light, or whatever else for whatever additional or modified purpose. But those additions aren't part of the irreducibly complex system.

Exactly. AI is making many points here that I feel a lot of people are missing. IC is a state at a specific moment, or of a specific configuration.

All irreducibly complex systems are designed. Not all designs are irreducibly complex.

Yes!

Nope, it's just that irreducibly complex systems are the most obviously designed, and therefore they present the best ammunition against Darwinists who must try to argue that each part got added onto the previous part sequentially and by accident.

As long as a particular feature isn't part of an irreducibly complex system, it's always possible that it might have been an accident. That requires serious study to determine. But if you can make a good argument for an irreducibly complex system, there's arguably no chance that any of the core parts got there by accident.

Precisely. Even if there is only one IC system somewhere, then that one had to be designed and there must be a designer. But you have to acknowledge that not everything is IC and that some things may have evolved when you're talking to people who believe in evolution.

What I got from other people commenting on this was that I should probably take a step back and look more at the overall picture and not delve into details that much. I concluded that this is probably good advice overall. But I also wanted to get to the bottom of something specific, and this whole post by AI is exactly in line with what I was saying, so I'm kinda glad to see I'm not the only one who understands things this way.

 

[Windmill knight]

Nope, it's just that irreducibly complex systems are the most obviously designed, and therefore they present the best ammunition against Darwinists who must try to argue that each part got added onto the previous part sequentially and by accident. Other systems or features are not so obviously designed - which why Behe devotes so much space in Darwin Devolves looking at advantageous features which ARE a result of RM and NS: to show what the actual limits of RM and NS are. As long as a particular feature isn't part of an irreducibly complex system, it's always possible that it might have been an accident. That requires serious study to determine. But if you can make a good argument for an irreducibly complex system, there's arguably no chance that any of the core parts got there by accident.

And here is what bothers me of the way neodarwinists argue against intelligence design. They demand from ID to provide an absolutely irrefutable piece of evidence or argument, and when they do - such as the case of irreducibly complex mechanisms - neodarwinists feel that all they need to do to counter that is to show that there is a minuscule possibility that it happened entirely by chance, and then they act as if neodarwinism had been proved right. In their rule-book, ID needs to score 100/100, but ND only needs to score 01/100 (or even less) to 'win' the debate.

In the case of the irreducibly complex flagellum, ND will say 'oh but there is this other structure that is like a needle so it is possible that it was an in-between step before the flagellum'. It doesn't matter how unlikely that is, for ND that's enough to feel vindicated - in spite of the fact that it has been shown that the DNA for the flagellum is older than that for the needle structure, so in any case the needle would be a devolutionary step from the flagellum, and not the other way around.

Some will go to great metaphysical extents to argue that it doesn't matter how unlikely it is that RM + NS produces evolution all the way to humans, because we can hypothesize that there's an infinite number of parallel universes, so all possibilities are realized somewhere at some point, and we just happen to live in the happy universe that happens to have intelligent life, which is us. That perspective opens so many questions and is so mind-blowing that is even more miraculous, magical and harder to believe than the simpler view that life was designed. Ockham's razor.

They use a somewhat similar line of thinking with the blood-clotting. It's a complex mechanism involving some 20 steps or so, but ND feel they only need to argue that one of those steps is not absolutely necessary to celebrate a 'score' in favor of their RM +NS theory. But what about the other 19? Again, I refer to the bicycle example: just because you can remove the rubber tires off a bike and still ride it (although much less efficiently) doesn't mean that the whole bike concept wasn't conceived as a functional whole.

 

[luc]

And here is what bothers me of the way neodarwinists argue against intelligence design. They demand from ID to provide an absolutely irrefutable piece of evidence or argument, and when they do - such as the case of irreducibly complex mechanisms - neodarwinists feel that all they need to do to counter that is to show that there is a minuscule possibility that it happened entirely by chance, and then they act as if neodarwinism had been proved right. In their rule-book, ID needs to score 100/100, but ND only needs to score 01/100 (or even less) to 'win' the debate.

Yes, and this is especially backwards when you consider the scope of Darwinism. (I'm thinking about including this aspect into the next article.)

To simplify, the larger the scope of a (scientific) theory, the more shaky it becomes. For example, if your theory is "there are some white swans", and you conduct a bunch of wildlife observations and you happen to see some white swans, you have a theory on pretty solid empirical ground. If your theory is "most swans are white", and you do a series of observations that confirm it, you might still have a pretty solid theory, but it's always possible that someone finds out that it's false through a series of observations that yields a different result. But if your theory is "all swans are white", the scope of the theory is extremely large and therefore easily falsified: all you need is come across one black swan, and bang! - theory falsified.

So, all empirical statements beginning with "all", "every time" and so on are essentially unprovable and are always threatened to be easily falsified by just one tiny data point. To be sure, sometimes overwhelming evidence justifies the use of "all" and similar quantifiers, but you must be aware that you leave the realm of concreteness and enter a highly abstract realm, and that just one observation/fact, even the most minuscule, will throw your theory out of the window.

Of course, Darwinism is a theory that is EXTREME in scope. Basically, Darwin made a bunch of observations, and then the whole thing turned into "ALL life evolved by means of NS/RM", "EVERY bit of information is created by evolution", "NO outside interference is needed EVER" and so on.

Therefore, all you need to do to debunk the theory is show ONE tiny example where the theory falls short. This is of course why Darwinists freak out over Irreducible Complexity - you just need to come up with one clear example of IC and poof! And obviously, there's no shortage of such examples. So the Darwinists weasel and scream, and try to shift the burden of proof over to the ID camp, when it belongs squarely into THEIR camp, with their large-scope Theory of Everything. Because all that Behe and gang say is "look at this example, how can your theory explain it?", they don't make claims such as "ALL things are designed, God Created EVERYTHING down to the last detail" and so on. So they don't need to "prove" their theory; they just need to show one modest example where Darwinism falls short. The Darwinists, on the other hand, need to constantly run around defending their Grand Theory against the onslaught of counterexamples and prove what basically is not provable, even theoretically: that some mechanism can explain EVERYTHING in life.

 

[Scottie]

Materialism is irreconcilable with reality, to the point that materialists basically argue against themselves, against their own reason, against their own consciousness, and so on. They have to abandon materialism regularly to be able to live at all. Their beliefs are, and pretty much must be, inconsistent with their actions.

Yeah. Much of the time, these are the types who will defend materialism/Darwinism/whatever the most violently. The emotionality comes from the uncomfortable/unconscious cognitive dissonance they experience. And it feeds itself, because obviously you shouldn't be emotional if you're a logical Vulcan, which of course they know deep inside that they aren't, but are desperately trying to be - and continually failing. How do you get someone to argue against their own soul? We have a winner!!

I guess you could separate two kinds of people. One is the hardcore Darwinists, who really believe all that retarded shit that comes with it. The other is people who started their lives with morality and meaning, in whatever form, and just kind of accepted Darwinism/evolution at school and never thought it through. It's like they truly "believe" in meaning, and just "accept" Darwinism because everyone around them does.

The hardcore ones are more like robots. Barf!

The ones who started off with morality can also get stuck in the idea that before, they were lost in religion. But now, they are "found" because they have seen the light and are all rational and scientific. They like to make sure that everyone else knows that, and they will even attempt to convince themselves and others that they were always that way. They often become the go-to person for those around them because they appear like they have it together. In reality though, they are madly trying to just hold on, and are thus ripe for manipulation of various sorts. It's almost beautifully diabolical.

And so, this materialist, Darwinism-fueled ideology eats away at people's consciousness/conscience, at their soul. As long as they accept it, it will corrode and invade their sense of meaning, their outlook on life as something imbued with meaning. The fact that many people still manage to be good people under this ideology is not at all proof that this ideology is compatible with (much less conducive to) an ethical life; rather, it's a testament of people's resilience against this soul-smashing ideology. But at one point, if you don't realize how entirely wrong this ideology is, your soul will be in danger.

Well put, I say!

 

[Joe]

Not quite. If you can remove a part, then it wasn't part of the irreducibly complex system. Both Behe and Dembski make that clear in their definitions. As Dembski wrote in the definition you quoted: "each part in the set is indispensable". The classic example is a mouse trap. It can't function at all when ANY one of its parts is removed; each is indispensable. But you can add parts to a mouse trap that aren't part of its irreducibly complex base, which is where I think you were going with this example:

My point is that there is no such thing as irreducible complexity as it is used by ID proponents to argue for ID. Things are designed whether they are "ID" or not.

I think you're conflating concepts here. All irreducibly complex systems are designed. Not all designs are irreducibly complex.

I think you're missing the point here. ALL systems are designed, whether they are IC or not.

Saying that something is "irreducibly complex" is just a scientific cover term by intelligent design proponents to avoid saying "intelligent design".

Nope, it's just that irreducibly complex systems are the most obviously designed, and therefore they present the best ammunition against Darwinists who must try to argue that each part got added onto the previous part sequentially and by accident. Other systems or features are not so obviously designed - which why Behe devotes so much space in Darwin Devolves looking at advantageous features which ARE a result of RM and NS: to show what the actual limits of RM and NS are. As long as a particular feature isn't part of an irreducibly complex system, it's always possible that it might have been an accident. That requires serious study to determine. But if you can make a good argument for an irreducibly complex system, there's arguably no chance that any of the core parts got there by accident.

I think you're tending to parrot the ideas and theories of those that you perceive to be authorities on the subject rather than use those theories to enable you to think for yourself. IC is, IMO, a term that is used by ID proponents to avoid saying "ID" outright but still make the case for ID. Scientists like Behe have to do that and watch what they say in navigating the neo-Darwinist wolves. WE do not and should not.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

My point is that there is no such thing as irreducible complexity as it is used by ID proponents to argue for ID.

Why not? It's well defined and makes perfect sense. It was the core of the book that started this thread. Why would there be no such thing?

ALL systems are designed, whether they are ID or not.

That may be true, but how is that a useful argument when talking to people who believe in Darwinism because that's what they had learned in school? IC is a form of evidence. "ALL systems are designed" is just a statement.

IC is, IMO, a term that is used by ID proponents to avoid saying "ID" outright but still make the case for ID.

I'm not sure why you'd have such an interpretation. IC is a specific property of specific designs, exactly as AI described it. ID is the source of living organisms. ID can be inferred from all kinds of other things than just IC, like from the total improbability of making any protein randomly. Mixing them up makes no sense to me. Noting in Behe's book gives the impression they're interchangeable. He talks about design anyway.

 

[Joe]

All irreducibly complex systems are designed. Not all designs are irreducibly complex.

Maybe you can see the fallacy in your thinking by rephrasing the above to reflect the meaning behind the words. In the context of this topic, an "irreducibly complex system" is an intelligently designed system. So in the first part of your statement above we have:

"All intelligently designed systems are intelligently designed."

Okay then.

In the second part you say "not all designs are irreducibly complex"

By "designs" you obviously mean intelligent designs (since there is nothing other than intelligence in the universe) and I already pointed out that irreducibly complex means intelligently designed. So the second part reads:

"Not all intelligently designed systems are intelligently designed."

Giving us the full statement:

"All intelligently designed systems are intelligently designed. Not all intelligently designed systems are intelligently designed."

Additionally, can you point to any system/component in nature that you can prove is not irreducibly complex/intelligently designed?

Again, we need to remember that we should not be approaching this topic as if we're debating Richard Dawkins.

 

[Joe]

Why not? It's well defined and makes perfect sense. It was the core of the book that started this thread. Why would there be no such thing?

Because the term means intelligent design! In which case EVERYTHING is "IC"! Call it what it is!

 

[Joe]

That may be true, but how is that a useful argument when talking to people who believe in Darwinism because that's what they had learned in school?

How is it useful to talk to people who "believe in Darwinism"?

IC is a form of evidence. "ALL systems are designed" is just a statement.

"All systems are designed is not just a statement", it's the truth, and a self-evident one for anyone with any sense.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

In the context of this topic, an "irreducibly complex system" is an intelligently designed system.

Not quite the same thing.

Because the term means intelligent design!

No, it doesn't.

Sorry, but you're confusing two things that are clearly different. The term Irreducible Complexity started with Behe's DBB, where he defines it precisely. Not all designs are IC. If I take a spoon and attach a fork to it, I now have a spork, which is not irreducibly complex, because it can be reduced to a spoon and a fork. It was designed, but it's not IC. You're simply ignoring the definition of IC as given by Behe (which is where everyone else got it, though some may have mangled the definition because they suck), and willy nilly saying it's the same as ID, even though I can't see any reason to equate two differently defined things.

How is it useful to talk to people who "believe in Darwinism"?

Why would I write articles for people who already believe what I'm writing about? You might as well say "how is it useful to try to educate anyone about anything?"

"All systems are designed is not just a statement", it's the truth, and a self-evident one for anyone with any sense.

That's the kind of dogmatism like "Evolution is true and nobody should question it". I'm rather perplexed here. I feel like somebody hacked your account. What am I missing here?

 

[Chu]

I think you're tending to parrot the ideas and theories of those that you perceive to be authorities on the subject rather than use those theories to enable you to think for yourself. IC is, IMO, a term that is used by ID proponents to avoid saying "ID" outright but still make the case for ID. Scientists like Behe have to do that and watch what they say in navigating the neo-Darwinist wolves. WE do not and should not.

I'm not sure why you'd have such an interpretation. IC is a specific property of specific designs, exactly as AI described it. ID is the source of living organisms. ID can be inferred from all kinds of other things than just IC, like from the total improbability of making any protein randomly. Mixing them up makes no sense to me. Noting in Behe's book gives the impression they're interchangeable. He talks about design anyway.

A design by definition IS intelligent. Otherwise, it's an accident.
As to some designs not being IC, how can you know that for sure, and why is that so important in the end? IMO it's no good argument, as it all depends on the way you apply the definition. The point is that they are visibly DESIGNED, regardless of their level of complexity, right? (Unless I'm missing something.)

The definition of IC by Behe is: "A single system 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."

It's definitely excellent to counteract the ridiculousness of Darwinism, but we shouldn't be limited by it. Or is a hand or even the entire human body not IC (extremely complex, if you wish)? You can have a person without a finger whose hand performs practically all the functions of the 5-fingered hand. You can have a bold person who performs his "person functions" exactly the same as when he had pony tail. Yet, hair itself is IC by Behe's definition, and so would the bones, flesh, veins, etc. be in that little finger that is gone. Remove the heart or the brain, and the person ceases to be alive. So, it's IC depending on which part you remove, and in the case of some parts not? Define the parts, then! I think that the main point is that regardless of their individual complexity as separate systems, they are part of a whole, a DESIGNED whole. And just because some authors got this far, we shouldn't assume that some designs are not IC. Isolated, they may not seem so (actually, can anyone name one as an example??) But we don't know which other whole they interact with, and are essential to. We still know too little to be claiming that we know anything for certain in this domain.

 

[BlackCartouche]

I'm rather perplexed here. I feel like somebody hacked your account.

Oh no, its Joe all right!

What am I missing here?

You gotta understand: Hes the trail blazer for trail blazers! Its about, like, as he says "Call it what it is!" - and to follow up Chu:

It's definitely excellent to counteract the ridiculousness of Darwinism, but we shouldn't be limited by it

Keep calm and carry on MI

 

[Joe]

Sorry, but you're confusing two things that are clearly different. The term Irreducible Complexity started with Behe's DBB, where he defines it precisely. Not all designs are IC. If I take a spoon and attach a fork to it, I now have a spork, which is not irreducibly complex, because it can be reduced to a spoon and a fork. It was designed, but it's not IC.

I'm not confusing two things, I'm trying to get to the heart of the matter by dispensing with redundant and confusing phrases. I think we're getting hung up on semantics here and giving undue weight to the phrase "irreducible complexity".

What is the merit of something that is IC compared to something that is not?

You're simply ignoring the definition of IC as given by Behe (which is where everyone else got it, though some may have mangled the definition because they suck), and willy nilly saying it's the same as ID, even though I can't see any reason to equate two differently defined things.

Both terms point to the same thing. Intelligent design. It doesn't matter that someone has given them two different definitions. Although as I keep saying, when Behe or whoever points to something that is IC he is by definition saying that it therefore HAS to be intelligently designed. My point is that things that are not IC are also intelligently designed, because there is no "random design" (the two words as a phrase are an oxymoron). So IC isn't that remarkable or noteworthy. Sure, it can be used to make the ID argument, but if that argument is accepted, there is no (rational) way to avoid accepting that everything is intelligently designed, including things that are not IC, which is used to allow for the darwinian idea of NS, which is nonsense, because again, there can be no "random design".

Why would I write articles for people who already believe what I'm writing about? You might as well say "how is it useful to try to educate anyone about anything?"

Maybe you should consider the idea that the only people who would ever absorb anything useful from anything you write or say are those who already (in one way or another) either accept your premise (in broad terms) or are open to the idea. Those who are not, those who "believe in evolution" for example, are unlikely to ever believe anything else. That's my take on the matter anyway.

That's the kind of dogmatism like "Evolution is true and nobody should question it". I'm rather perplexed here. I feel like somebody hacked your account. What am I missing here?

I didn't say nobody should question it. That's the kind of 'putting words in my mouth' response I'd expect to hear from a neo-Darwinist.

 

[mkrnhr]

Irreductible complexity invalidates Darwinism and paves the way to the paradigm of Intelligent Design. It is not all on itself but a tool along the way. The destination is Intelligent Design and beyond.

 

[Joe]

As Dembski wrote in the definition you quoted: "each part in the set is indispensable".

Yeah, but you missed the last part: "to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function"

That leaves open the door to a definition of IC including systems that have a component removed and yet still function, albeit in a less optimal or changed way. The point being, IC should not be held up as the best evidence for ID. We need to go further.

The push back I'm getting in trying to make this point reminds me of the point made by Luc, I think, that the neo-darwinian world view hasn't just shaped people's views of the origin of life but pervades our entire world view and, more importantly, may have created a "scientific" rigidity of thinking that tends to depend on an outside authority for validation of the rigid thought processes.