Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,427
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + Line 8:
Line 13: − − − [[William Dembski]] in book ''No Free Lunch'', states the the following: − − "A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. <ref>William Dembski, ''No Free Lunch'',(2001), p. 285. ISBN 0742512975</ref> −
no edit summary
'''Irreducible complexity''' is a property of any system whose internal workings are so complex that the removal or alteration of any part would prevent the system from functioning. 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.
'''Irreducible complexity''' is a property of any system whose internal workings are so complex that the removal or alteration of any part would prevent the system from functioning. 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.
[[William Dembski]] in book ''No Free Lunch'', states the the following:
"A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. <ref>William Dembski, ''No Free Lunch'',(2001), p. 285. ISBN 0742512975</ref>
This concept has been used by astronomer [[Fred Hoyle]] and biochemistry professor [[Michael Behe]] to argue against the idea of "[[evolution through natural selection]]". Hoyle compares the probability of all the parts of a [[cell]] coming together through natural forces to the probability of a cyclone in a [[hanger]] assembling all the parts of a [[Boeing 747]] aircraft.
This concept has been used by astronomer [[Fred Hoyle]] and biochemistry professor [[Michael Behe]] to argue against the idea of "[[evolution through natural selection]]". Hoyle compares the probability of all the parts of a [[cell]] coming together through natural forces to the probability of a cyclone in a [[hanger]] assembling all the parts of a [[Boeing 747]] aircraft.
"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>
"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
[[Intelligent Design]] theorists agree with Charles Darwin that a biological system could not make a gradual transition via small successive steps, unless each step provided an advantage to the species.
[[Intelligent Design]] theorists agree with Charles Darwin that a biological system could not make a gradual transition via small successive steps, unless each step provided an advantage to the species.