| − | '''Irreducible Complexity''' is the aspect of a system which prevents it from operating at all, unless all of its parts are in place and working properly. | + | '''Irreducible Complexity''' was a concept created by Michael Behe, arguing that certain aspects of living organisms are irreducibly complex, meaning that all of the intermediate stages in the development of these parts would be useless, and would thus not occur through natural selection. |
| | [[William Dembski]] in book ''No Free Lunch'', states the the following: | | [[William Dembski]] in book ''No Free Lunch'', states the the following: |
| | Kenneth R. Miller describes hypothetical precursors to the flagellum's being used as ionic channels within [[bacteria]], known as the ''Type III Secretory System''.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html The Flagellum Unspun]</ref> However, Professor Behe counters that Miller's criticism of his work is flawed. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_trueacidtest.htm</ref> Critics, including biology professor John McDonald, have countered Behe's toy model, the mouse trap, used to illustrate the concept. McDonald produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.<ref name=trap>[http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html A reducibly complex mousetrap] (graphics-intensive, requires [[JavaScript]])</ref> <!--Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance.-->However, Professor Behe disputes the criticism of John McDonald. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm</ref> | | Kenneth R. Miller describes hypothetical precursors to the flagellum's being used as ionic channels within [[bacteria]], known as the ''Type III Secretory System''.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html The Flagellum Unspun]</ref> However, Professor Behe counters that Miller's criticism of his work is flawed. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_trueacidtest.htm</ref> Critics, including biology professor John McDonald, have countered Behe's toy model, the mouse trap, used to illustrate the concept. McDonald produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.<ref name=trap>[http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html A reducibly complex mousetrap] (graphics-intensive, requires [[JavaScript]])</ref> <!--Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance.-->However, Professor Behe disputes the criticism of John McDonald. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm</ref> |
| | + | Many scientists have shown the entire concept of Irreducible Complexity to be false and unfounded, and have given examples of how the two most common examples of irreducible complexity, the bacterial flagellum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU</ref> and the eye,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA</ref> could have gradually evolved. |