A question for evolutionists: If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference?
An irreducibly complex system is generally defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed. If such a system is found, all it would show is that it did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. However, since this is not the only evolutionary mechanism around, the IDists who use this argument simply show themselves to be completely ignorant when it comes down to how evolution actually works. An irreducibly complex system would not pose a problem for evolution nor justify the design inference.
A reducibility complex system is both a property of the system and of the observer. Not only does the system have to be reduced to its known elements, the observer must also be capable of reducing it. Therefore, when we find an ‘irreducibility complex’ system, we must ask if we can improve our knowledge of that system. What the IDists do is to close their eyes and yell ‘God The Designer did it!’ instead of doing some actual science.
On the other hand, finding traces of a transcendental Designer would be a discovery worthy of a Nobel Prize. The next step after finding the designer is elucidating its nature and its relationship to our universe. Is the designer an alien from outer space? Is the designer William Dembski? No one has ‘proof’ on the nonexistence of a partial or total designer, or course, but we have evidence of a self-evolving universe.
The creationists are after a regression to the ‘god-of-the-gaps’ anti-scientific tactic as their design inference explains nothing at all. What could these irreducibly complex features tell us about the designer or the mechanisms of design? What exactly does the design inference explain apart from ‘We don’t know yet, so GODDIDIT.’? How does the design inference improve our understanding of how the universe works? Even if evolution is shown to be false, the ID approach is only one out of a vast number of possible answers to the question of origins, and there is no reason to assume that ID is the correct explanation by default.
Therefore, the ID argument fails.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Shalini Sehkar
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
I am so glad when people with a fluent understanding of these types of concepts speak out against the gaping holes in the conclusions being drawn by ID-ists. It is a very poor assessment of reality to go from “we don’t know how this happened” to “God did it!” Irreducible Complexity seems like an attempt by so called “christian” scientists to offer pseudoscientific jargon to the masses of blind religious followers so they can sound like they know what they are talking about in a debate. I would love to hear Victor Stenger in a live discussion with one of these nut bags.
I agree, ID is a fraud, I’ve got my own anti-creationist posts on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/dealing-with-abysmal-ignorance.html
But this question, “How does the design inference improve our understanding of how the universe works?” can be answered. It would improve our understanding if it were true, we could go from asking if the “design” has a purpose to asking what is that purpose. In fact, in a sense we already do this by saying, in not entirely metaphoric terms, that the design purpose of an organism is to leave more copies than its competitors. Life resembles some sort of sim game to see which designer can win dominance of an environment.
However, since its not true, we can’t find any real other purpose than survival of the fittest. You’d have to go back to the watchmaker argument. With a watch you might discover something about the person who made it — in fact scientists do stuff like that with anthropology all the time.
Also, I would question this claim: “Even if evolution is shown to be false, the ID approach is only one out of a vast number of possible answers to the question of origins, and there is no reason to assume that ID is the correct explanation by default.”
Okay, name some others. If you ever get into a debate, be prepared to be challenged on that point.
Shalini, I love you forever but you have got to proof read your posts before you publish. I can feel the energy of your passions and you are a good writer, but a careful reading before sending would improve your arguments. That being said, keep kicking them in the nuts. You are still my favorite rude woman blogger.
Christ D