The Failure of Irreducible Complexity (Updated 6/13/08)

[Sky-Gear]

*Huggles thread*

[twilightwyrm]

VoijaRisa

Reniefuwa

Excellent link thread, dude. Thanks for the run-down. Now Gaia has its very own resource for this kind of topic! This thread will be linked again and again, I'm absolutely positive.

It's been around for several months, yet this is the least successful of my epic threads thus far. Only 2 pages? Sadness.

But I do keep linking it any time someone brings up ID/IC in this forum. And I'll keep updating it any time Behe lets something new and stupid slip.

Ah, that my friend would be because creationists cannot refute your argument. Thus they do the only thing they reasonably can do. Ignore you, and hope that that they can find a more winnable argument. Why? The short answer is that they are lazy, one of the driving reasons behind why they promote creationism in the first place. They want someone, or something, else telling them what is an isn't in simple clear cut terms that do not require much conscious thought. Go figure.

[Katherine1]

I could randomly point at something being Irreducibly Complex just for kicks if you want. It might generate some sort of activity here.

[Raian-kun]

*hugs thread* heart

[VoijaRisa]

Terrible shame that people ignore this thread yet keep making the arguments in it...

[Riviera de la Mancha]

I never have used the watchmaker argument myself, which is why I am a proponent of telological or cosmological arguments. I find that evolution works so well that it can only be the design of some greater force basically.

The only thing that sticks in my craw about your post is that you said you cant prove a negative. Now, I am not saying that people in favor of the watchmaker's case can, but logicians regularly prove negatives all the time. It can and does happen. Whether the people arguing for their side in this can is a different story.

[VoijaRisa]

Bumpdated with new source on devlopment of the flagellum.

[hypothetical_delirium]

"However, while Behe is the originator of the term “Irreducible Complexity”, the core of this argument can easily be traced back to at least 1802, to theologian William Paley. Paley’s form is known as the “watchmaker argument”. Essentially it says that if we observe a complex system with well matched parts (like a watch), we know by virtue of its complexity that it must have had a designer (ie, a watchmaker)."

(yes, it's been so long since I've visited Gaia that I forgot about the handy lil "quote" button. >.< wink

I figured you might appreciate this video, as it takes this simple premise of IC and turns it around completely. Plus it's amusing, and it's (depressingly) actually quite palatable for this generation, with their seeming inability to read anything longer than a page.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

[VoijaRisa]

hypothetical_delirium

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Yeah. This is a great video. I'll edit it into the first post shortly.

[VoijaRisa]

Bumping so Creationists have no excuse to continue their ignorance in all the new threads that have popped up the past few days.

[Medi Suran]

oh man. I concede. emo

[Black Mr Popo]

No offense, it's a good argument and everything, but why put in so much effort?
Just link to the Dover trial. Irreducable complexity got it's a** cornholed by Ken Miller.

[Black Mr Popo]

VoijaRisa

hypothetical_delirium

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Yeah. This is a great video. I'll edit it into the first post shortly.

Ah, CDK007, he's very good at illustrating evolution using only powerpoint presentations.
Where he crushes the premise of Expelled.
Where he admits the existance of irreducably complex systems, then uses that fact to bitchslap creationists.
The evolution of the irreducably complex bombadier beetle.
The evolution of the flagellum.
A young Dawkins Pwns the eye argument. It's rather old.
Thunderf00t, the atheist garbageman. He destroys the stuff that has no scientific basis whatsoever.