Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
752
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − +
There is no reason for it to be impoossible, aside from the fact that cars aren't alive. But it is EXTREMELY unlikely. I'd say probability is extremely close to 0, but not 0.
'''Irreducible Complexity''' is an argument used to support intelligent design that claims that all parts of a system are required for it to work properly, and the removal of any part would disable the whole system. The idea of irreducible complexity is that some systems are so complex that the removal or alteration of any part would prevent the system from functioning. Proponents of [[intelligent design]] claim that irreducible complexity is evidence that the system probably was designed by an intelligent agent of some sort.
'''Irreducible Complexity''' is an argument used to support intelligent design that claims that all parts of a system are required for it to work properly, and the removal of any part would disable the whole system. The idea of irreducible complexity is that some systems are so complex that the removal or alteration of any part would prevent the system from functioning. Proponents of [[intelligent design]] claim that irreducible complexity is evidence that the system probably was designed by an intelligent agent of some sort.
For example, a car will not go without an engine. Indeed, the engine will not run without fuel and a starter motor. The designer must ensure that all parts work together to produce the intended function. A car could not just evolve. Implicit in the argument is the assumption that things cannot evolve unless they serve their ultimate purpose in every step of the evolution process. For example, here, the reason why the car couldn't evolve is because it wouldn't be a car without an engine. Of course, there is no such requirement in the theory of evolution that a car would have to remain a car throughout its entire evolutionary history. The irreducible complexity argument is nonetheless a major flaw in the theory of evolution and serves to make it seem very unlikely. In short, a car could 'evolve,' but it would be many other things before it finally became a car; it is easy to see that the probability of a car evolving (by chance) is exactly 0.
For example, a car will not go without an engine. Indeed, the engine will not run without fuel and a starter motor. The designer must ensure that all parts work together to produce the intended function. A car could not just evolve. Implicit in the argument is the assumption that things cannot evolve unless they serve their ultimate purpose in every step of the evolution process. For example, here, the reason why the car couldn't evolve is because it wouldn't be a car without an engine. Of course, there is no such requirement in the theory of evolution that a car would have to remain a car throughout its entire evolutionary history. The irreducible complexity argument is nonetheless a major flaw in the theory of evolution and serves to make it seem very unlikely. In short, a car could 'evolve,' but it would be many other things before it finally became a car; it is easy to see that the probability of a car evolving (by chance) is extremely close to 0.
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[William Dembski]]]]
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[William Dembski]]]]