Info
You are currently browsing the AcademicFreedomBlog weblog archives for the day March 13, 2007.
Calendar
Categories
- Culture & society (59)
- History (25)
- Notable Quotes (13)
- Personal story (11)
- Politics (23)
- Science and faith (77)
- Uncategorized (15)
Latest Postings
- November 30, 2008: Of Baramins and Baloney 5
- November 23, 2008: Of Baramins and Baloney 4
- November 10, 2008: Of Baramins and Baloney 3
- November 2, 2008: Good conversation
- October 19, 2008: Baraminology and pseudoscience
- October 5, 2008: No Matter What
- September 16, 2008: As easy as 1-2-3
- September 7, 2008: Not what they had in mind
- August 31, 2008: The momentum against logic and facts
- August 24, 2008: Orgnizations v. Organisms
Links
Blogroll
Chat
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
Archive for March 13, 2007
Is Irreducible Complexity Really Irreducible?
March 13, 2007 by Dr. Mc.
A friend send me a link to YouTube this week. (Thanks, Luke.) The presentation, attacking Michael Behe’s use of the flagellum as irreducible complexity, is very convincing. The presenter accurately presents Behe’s argument before the rebuttal. No, I don’t buy it. Here’s why: The presenter argues that there does exist a less complex organelle composed of only 10 proteins that are found in the bacterial flagellum, which requires approximately 48. He presents the idea as if an example of just 10 is superior to a more complex example. That is in no way the case, but it apparently is used in an attempt to sway the audience. The argument is that since one functional organelle exists of lesser complexity, and all other parts have use somewhere in biology; then the flagellum is no longer irreducible. Behe also addresses this in his Darwin’s Black Box. He agrees that one of the 48 steps to the flagellum’s complexity exists. Still, the flagellum argument can only be defeated if EVERY intermediary step can be demonstrated to be functional. An example would be the building of words from lesser words, such as the following:
a, at, bat, bate, abate, abated. Proving that a function exists for one lesser level of complexity and stating that all other parts have functions (he does say in the video that his argument is hypothetical) would be like saying all letters in the alphabet are useful, therefore the word “university” evolved from the word “sit.” (Sorry, I couldn’t think of a word that has 48 letters.) If irreducible complexity is not really irreducible, it is not demonstrated by this video.
Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »
|