One of the favorite tactics of creationism is to engage in the "God of the Gaps" argument; if science can't explain something, then it must have been God/ the Intelligent Designer. Or, conversely, if one can poke enough holes in evolution then not only will it be destroyed but everyone will have no choice but to accept the creationist alternative. This tactic has evolved (pun intended) into the "irreducible complexity" argument of the Intelligent Design hucksters, most notably espoused by Michael Behe of Darwin's Black Box and the 2005 Dover Intelligent Design trial.
The argument goes that a number of observable features in nature are irreducibly complex, that is to say that if one part is removed then the whole system collapses. Thus the "irreducibly complex" feature could not possibly have evolved and is proof of the work of an Intelligent Designer (which may or may not be the God of the Bible; ID proponents are cagey on this, saying in public they can't say whether or not it's God, but happily claiming in private that it is). The immune system, the mechanism for blood clotting, the bacterial flagellum and the human eye are all supposed examples of this complexity (but in Only a Theory, biologist Ken Miller dismantles these claims and demonstrates that they are complex, but not irreducible at all). Even Darwin recognized that the eye seemed complex, and creationists are fond of taking his quote out of context to make it seem that he was puzzled by the eye--when in fact Darwin went on to explain exactly how the eye could have evolved with no need of Paley's "Watchmaker" or Behe's "Intelligent Designer".
The main reason for today's post is to note this video, in which the evolution of the eye is explained. Once again, creationists are not only wrong but willfully blind. The eye is not irreducibly complex after all but can be explained by evolution. Not that they will ever admit it.
The argument goes that a number of observable features in nature are irreducibly complex, that is to say that if one part is removed then the whole system collapses. Thus the "irreducibly complex" feature could not possibly have evolved and is proof of the work of an Intelligent Designer (which may or may not be the God of the Bible; ID proponents are cagey on this, saying in public they can't say whether or not it's God, but happily claiming in private that it is). The immune system, the mechanism for blood clotting, the bacterial flagellum and the human eye are all supposed examples of this complexity (but in Only a Theory, biologist Ken Miller dismantles these claims and demonstrates that they are complex, but not irreducible at all). Even Darwin recognized that the eye seemed complex, and creationists are fond of taking his quote out of context to make it seem that he was puzzled by the eye--when in fact Darwin went on to explain exactly how the eye could have evolved with no need of Paley's "Watchmaker" or Behe's "Intelligent Designer".
The main reason for today's post is to note this video, in which the evolution of the eye is explained. Once again, creationists are not only wrong but willfully blind. The eye is not irreducibly complex after all but can be explained by evolution. Not that they will ever admit it.
Behe never claimed that the eye as a whole was irreducibly complex. Nice try, though!
ReplyDeleteSorry, Anonymous, but it is irrelevant whether or not Behe himself claimed the eye is irreducibly complex. Behe may have coined the term and become one of the major proponents, but others have seized upon it and used the eye as something too complex to have evolved. Try again soon!
ReplyDeletenice
ReplyDelete