Irreducible Complexity Objection Refuted
An argument from the Intelligent Design people that creationists like to use is irreducible complexity. That is, components of an organism must be in place at the same time, or nothing would make sense, and even be harmful to the organism if they evolved piecemeal. There are many examples, including the hummingbird, bombardier beetle, and on the unseen level, the ATP synthase enzyme and the flagellum. Irreducible complexity is a strong argument for the skill of our Creator as well as a serious impediment for evolution.
Darwin's defenders don't cotton to evidence for creation, so they attempt to "refute" things they dislike (such as dinosaur soft tissue and irreducible complexity) with such first water arguments as, "It's been refuted", or, "That's not true". Saying something has been refuted does not demonstrate actual refutation, nor do objecting or offering an argument become refutation. Some owlhoots need to learn this.
In an interesting exchange of comments about irreducible complexity, an atheist made remarks and was educated in both science and logic. To read it, click on "Irreducible complexity and cul-de-sacs".
 |
| Image credit: Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) |
In an interesting exchange of comments about irreducible complexity, an atheist made remarks and was educated in both science and logic. To read it, click on "Irreducible complexity and cul-de-sacs".
