Do you agree with Behe's claim that irreducibly complex systems couldn't have evolved to the Darwinian theory?

Question

Do you agree with Behe's claim that irreducibly complex systems couldn't have evolved to the Darwinian theory?

Answer 1

Darwin is outdated. We've learned a great deal more since then. His claim is based on outdated information.

Answer 2

Fancy words for saying that since we do not fully understand how it happened, it could not have happened naturally.

It's the big brother to the:  If God had meant man to fly, he would have given him wings.  Man was always capable of flight, we just spent centuries not knowing.

Just because something appears "irreducibly complex" to our current theories doesn't mean they are, it just means we haven't yet figured out the natural mechanisms yet.

Answer 3

The whole concept of irreducible complexity is based on flawed science at best, and willful ignorance at worst. The most trumpeted example of this supposed irreducible complexity is the human eye - but any evolutionary biologist worth his salt can trace the rudimentary structures of the eyespot in early organisms to later and more complex visual structures, and note the chance combination of several mechanisms into the whole of the structure.

So in other words, no. Irreducible complexity is just more pseudoscience trotted out for the benefit of ID fanatics.

Answer 4

I support Behe. I don't see how the surrounding environment can create change on a species. If the species needed an advantage to survive that it never possessed and the environment did react on the species, the changes would take millions of years. By that time, the species would be extinct.

Take for example a species coming out of the sea and onto land. It would need to already have lungs and some means to move about to get food or the species would die out.  

Answer 5

Nobody who knows anything believes Behe anymore....

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshe...

http://books.google.com/books?id=xh1gLrO...

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&...

Answer 6

I support Ryan's answer and yes I do agree.  And I even think because of the discovery of DNA and even RNA and the complexity they provide for the structure of a living entity to maintain it's integrity and preserve it's existence the Darwinian theory is untenable.  See link below.  The following are some quotes from it.

"It was once expected," writes Professor Behe, "that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).

Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).

Dr. Meyer's conclusion? "I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction" (ibid., p. 77)."

"Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code.

"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004)."

I did not quote anything from the second link but it does show how Darwinian evolutionary theory appears to be losing grown to intelligent scientists who must reasonably accept the evidence and look for another cause.

Answer 7

I have difficulty accepting any offering to the problem of understanding evolution for even in the study of our biologic evolution there are grave objections to the exclusive historic approach to our present-day status and our current problems.

The true perspective of any reality problem--human or divine, terrestrial or cosmic--can be had only by the full and unprejudiced study and correlation of three phases of universe reality: origin, history, and destiny. The proper understanding of these three experiential realities affords the basis for a wise estimate of our current status.

Answer 8

  Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument has been refuted repeatedly, and he has offered no counterarguments or new evidence to support his ideas. So no, I do not agree. And notice the biggest flaw in his reasoning. If there has to be an "intellegent designer" to design complex things like humans, then who "designs the designer"? it all goes back to creationism in a badly fitting tuxedo.

Answer 9

Behe is a man with a mission -- to prove the existence of God by default.

This is attempted by introducing doubt in the reliability of reason. If reason cannot be counted upon, then God is the only recourse.

Answer 10

Irreducible complexity has been disprove

I am not sure which parts he used, but common arguments are the eyeball and the bacteria flagellum

I'm not a biologist, but I understand the flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex, but the parts that make it up can actually perform functions different than that in the flagellum

For example I believe the base of the flagellum by itself performs as a syringe for many viruses.....so it is not an irreducibly complex organism

And I have seen videos of Richard Dawkins break down the eye and explain how it came to be.  The retinas in our eyes are backwards, which is quite odd if it was designed.  It is an unfortunate accident through evolution it seems, not the result of a stupid designer(which is what God would have to be in order to have the retinas backwards)

Answer 11

No, because examples that are commonly cited -- bacterial flagellum, for example -- seem to have arisen with uses different than those for which they eventually came to be known:the stinger of Yersina pestis eventually was co-opted for use in locomotion.  In a similar fashion, the complex eye seems to have evolved from less elaborate sensory apparati; indeed, even the capacity to sense differences in sunlight might have provided simple organisms with rudimentary "eyes" a selective advantage in securing food and evading predators.  Generally, we find that Behe's arguments from irreducible complexity are founded on incomplete and distorted scientific understanding.  This is science in the service of buttressing creationist claims and nothing more, and is not taken seriously by anyone with scientific training unless they also have other agenda.  Study the Bridgewater Treatises and you will find that these arguments are little more than Paley's watch revisited.  Do not be fooled by pseudoscience; too much is at stake.