0
What evidence is there against the Intelligent Design concept of Irreducible Complexity?
Creationists recognised that evolution can make sense if a species develops an existing capability into a new or better capability. However, they put forward the argument that a new capability could not evolve if a more primitive capability did not already exist. They say that certain capabilities are irreducibly complex and that for a species to have only part of that capability would not make sense. As a recognisable model for this hypothesis, they put forward the mousetrap - it was invented in its entirety, since the elimination of any one of its parts would make it useless for any purpose.
One of the first 'proofs' proposed by the Intelligent Designer group, for irreducible complexity in nature was the eye. After all, the eye either works or it does not. Simple logic therefore says that the eye could not have evolved. However scientists point out that more primitive eyes and light-sensitive organs do exist in nature, and they can show how sight evolved from its earliest form - light-sensitive skin that simply identified daylight or dark - through to the complex structures we now see in mammals and insects.
The Intelligent Designer group then proposed that the bacterial flagellum constituted an irreducibly complex biochemical system. Flagella are the means by which bacteria move around in their host environment, and it would seem that they must either be present or not. However, biologists say that flagella evolved from a mechanism within the bacterial body, by which it moves its own internal fluids.
For more information on the context of this debate, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
What else can I help you with?
What do you call a person against intelligent design?
A person against intelligent design may be referred to as an advocate for evolutionary theory, naturalism, or scientific materialism. They often reject the idea that the complexity of life is the result of a deliberate, supernatural creator.
What is the name of the law that states that a more complex system cannot be created in a less complex one?
This principle is known as "Irreducible Complexity," which suggests that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, predecessor systems. It is often used as an argument against the theory of evolution.
What was the main counterargument against wegeners evidence?
Many scientists dismissed the theory because it flew in the face of conventional wisdom.
What Evidence is there for against Charles Darwin's theory?
continuously discovers, which gives every time different info and moved the time of homo sapiens was born
What is a sentence with the word unconvincing?
A lot of the evidence against Joe Bloggs was unconvincing, so the jury acquitted him.
What are the three arguments against the theory of evolution?
Lack of transitional fossils: Some argue that there is a lack of transitional fossils that show the gradual changes between different species, which is predicted by evolutionary theory. Complexity of living organisms: Critics question how complex structures like the human eye could have evolved through natural selection, arguing that they are too intricate to have developed gradually. Irreducible complexity: The concept of irreducible complexity posits that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved in a step-by-step manner because they would not function without all their components present.
Why is irreducible complexity vital to the intelligent design argument that creation points to a creator?
"Irreducible complexity" essentially means that a usefully functioning, complex component of an organism can have no possible useful function if any of its parts are removed. This concept leads directly to the conclusion that the component must have come into being as a completely new, fully functional, complex organ or organelle, without any gradual evolution from earlier, less complex systems (which would not have had any useful function). This, in turn, leads to the conclusion that any fully functioning, complex component cannot have evolved because evolution is, by definition, a gradual accumulation of small mutations, as opposed to the sudden appearance of a completely new, fully functional, complex organ or organelle.The concept of Irreducible complexity is vital to Intelligent Design theory because it it is the basis for the assertion that an organism is too complex to be just the result of a series of random, isolated mutations; one that came into existence independently of any organizing agent.While Creationists have used the arguments put forward by Professor Behe it is worth remembering that he himself does not specifically point to creation but is only seeking to object to evolution and demonstrate its impossibility. Having said that it is easy to see why Creationists find much on common with intelligent design. Professor Behe has put forth a number of examples that purportedly demonstrate systems or organs that simply could not work unless the system or organ came into existence as a whole; in other words, that the individual parts simply could not work alone, and that therefore all the parts must somehow have "fallen into place" simultaneously for the system to provide any survival advantage to the organism.It has been argued that one of Darwin's motivations was specifically to refute William Paley's argument from design. Behe has in a sense turned the tables on Darwin and demonstrated why unguided evolution, in his opinion, cannot work. Creationists would argue effectively that creation by an intelligent designer is tantamount to arguing for an intelligent Creator viz. the God of the Bible.Many scientists have presented arguments that, they assert, refute the concept of irreducible complexity. The primary argument against irreducible complexity is the process, observed in nature, of exaptation, wherein an existing organ or system confers a survival skill other than that for which it originally evolved. One example of this that has been cited in the scientific journals is the development, in bacteria, of a secretory system (to secrete fluids) that, at a certain point in its development, also had the side-effect of causing the bacterium to move about, but in a useless, random fashion. This facility for random movement then, scientists assert, independently evolved into a functional system for directed, non-random movement, and currently exists as what is called the "flagellum" - the organ the gives bacteria the ability to move about. The existing flagellum would seem to have no effective function if any of its parts were removed; nonetheless, a potential mechanism for its evolution has been presented, thus, presumably, refuting the concept of irreducible complexity.The following links provide details of some of the arguments and discussion surrounding Behe's irreducible complexity idea from a Creationist perspective. Also included is the "Wikipedia" article on irreducible complexity.
Where is your creator?
Our creator is God, who is in heaven and on Earth.http://religion.answers.com/controversy/is-there-evidence-against-evolutionhttp://judaism.answers.com/jewish-philosophy/can-you-prove-that-god-existshttp://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm
What do you call a person against intelligent design?
A person against intelligent design may be referred to as an advocate for evolutionary theory, naturalism, or scientific materialism. They often reject the idea that the complexity of life is the result of a deliberate, supernatural creator.
Why is information stored in DNA evidence for a creator and against evolution?
DNA evidence is not specifically stored as evidence for a creator or against evolution. However, some people may argue that the complex information encoded in DNA suggests an intelligent designer, while others view it as a product of natural selection and evolution. Ultimately, interpretations of DNA evidence depend on one's worldview and understanding of science and religion.
What evidence is against humans evolving?
If we're evolving and evolved from monkeys or apes then why is there still monkeys and apes. We did not evolve from apes or monkeys. We branched off a common line. Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes had a common ancestor . Apes evolved in one direction and we evolved in another. We probably looked a lot alike at first.
What is the name of the law that states that a more complex system cannot be created in a less complex one?
This principle is known as "Irreducible Complexity," which suggests that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, predecessor systems. It is often used as an argument against the theory of evolution.
What are the arguments for and against DNA evidence?
There are many arguments for and against DNA evidence. One argument is that it cannot be disproved as deciding evidence.
Have dolphins ever raped humans?
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that dolphins have raped humans. Dolphins are known to be intelligent and social animals, but there have been no documented cases of dolphins engaging in sexual activity with humans against their will.
What are the three proponents of intelligent design?
By proponents, do you mean people who support it? Or do you mean components? Either way, I can't give you a straight answer. There are many big proponents of Intelligent Design, but I have never heard of any concrete components of it.Intelligent Design advocates state that all life was designed by a higher power. They derive their belief from the complexity of DNA and Biblical scripture. They also generally believe that evolution is not true. Unfortunately for ID advocates, the evidence for evolution far outweighs any suggestive assumption against evolution derived from one point of view and one belief system. The evidence only points in one direction, and that direction is that evolution is absolutely true.
What can evidence provide?
Evidence can prove, or disprove, the case against you.
What are Arguments against intelligent design behind evolution?
Every argument against evolution falls into several categories. 1.) It could disprove something if it were true, but that something would not be evolution. 2.) There are no arguments for Intelligent design, all they have are arguments against evolution (and sometime plate tectonics, cosmology, mathematics's, or oceanography). 3.) Every single argument made against evolution or any other natural science in defence of intelligent design (also known as creationism as determined by a conservative Christian judge) has been used as an argument against intelligent design and backing up the science that the creationists are trying to ignore. Summary: Take any creationist claim, summarize it, and take the reverse of that and you get the scientific arguments against intelligent design and for evolution.
