Can Irreducible complexity qualify as a scientific concept ?

Question

Can Irreducible complexity give a scientific foundation to Intelligent Design?

Answer 1

No. The reason is that the burden of proof would be up to the person pointing at "irreducible complexity" to show that the phenomenon in reference is irreducibly complex.

To use the common example of a mousetrap, you can take away any individual component and still have a device that functions in one way or another. Take off the hammer, and you have a tieclip. Remove all but the spring from the base, and you have a doorknocker. Take away everything except the base (just a wooden block), and you have a paperweight or a doorstop.

The point is that you would have to prove that there's no way the structures presented could have any function whatsoever. Why couldn't the mouse-trap-to-be functioned as a tie-clip, if that was an available niche?

In short, you'd be asked to prove a negative, which is impossible.

Answer 2

The principle of Irreducible complexity is based upon the opinion that the complexity of the creation and workings of the universal world cannot be decreased as its intricacies are considered conclusively unfathomable.

It is a belief by held by novices who also are of the opinion that God cannot be fathomed and the mysteries cannot be entirely understood. The belief is based largely on the holder’s lack of ability than the world’s complexity. It is a theory based upon objectivism.

There are woefully few conclusive scientific premises as research and new finding constantly updating the same. The Intelligent Design Hypothesis is based upon the teleological argument which stipulates the existence of a creator based upon the perceived order of nature. Defining an intended purpose for the creation of the universe by the Creator.

This leads to a requisite definition of the attributes, constituents and nature of the Creator. This has yet to be agreed upon.

The Earth is similar to the Human body in its complexity of mass, tissue, sinew, fluid, bone, hair, nail etc as Plate Tectonics can vaguely substantiate. The Earth as paradoxically juxtaposed with the earth seems an implausible theory yet on closer examination one will find that both are created and function upon similar principles.

It can be concluded if not decisively that man is a fraglet a minute microcosm of the Earth. It is a theory I pondered whilst washing crockery …

Answer 3

Only as something to argue AGAINST.

"Darwin famously wrote in the Origin of Species “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Those who trumpet intelligent design, like the Discovery Institute in Seattle, have referred to this “irreducible complexity” as a way of disproving evolutionary theory. "

Darwin famously wrote in the Origin of Species “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Those who trumpet intelligent design, like the Discovery Institute in Seattle, have referred to this “irreducible complexity” as a way of disproving evolutionary theory.

My own site is dealing with realist theism and Intelligent Design all week. Thank you for looking. http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Answer 4

It is conceivably possible... but it would be a very difficult case to prove.

After all, you have to demonstrate not only that any current complex relationship cannot possibly be reduced to simpler components, but also that any possible historical elaboration of the system also cannot possibly be reduced.  If the current system was once an even more complex or a radically altered one which could have been broken apart, then you've gained no ground at all.

As such, it ends up in a WORSE position than many evolutionary scenarios do.  With a bunch of missing links, evolutionists have to try to get from A to B, but those who advocate intelligent design have essentially to demonstrate that there is no possible path from A to B.

It could happen.  It hasn't happened so far.  Every supposed case has been debunked.  But part of science is keeping an open mind.

Answer 5

Irreducible Complexity is just the new catch phrase to disguise the usual argument from ignorance:

I don't know and you don't know, so I must be right.

It is a waste of time.