Irreducible complexity
Irreducible complexity (or irreducible complexity) is a named Michael Behe concept with which he tries to support Intelligent Design. Defining an irreducible complex system as a " single system that consists of several mating and cooperating parts which contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any of the parts causes that the system ceases to function effectively. " With this concept it is the assertion on that theory that life has evolved through biological evolution is incomplete and insufficient, and that the intervention of an intelligent designer is necessary to explain the origin of structures and metabolic systems in living things.
He claims:
Dissemination by Michael Behe
The concept was taken by biochemist and member of the conservative Christian Discovery Institute Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box (1996 ) popular. In it, he argues that there are biological systems that are irreducibly complex in his eyes, and thus trying to support Intelligent Design.
The concept is ignored or rejected because it makes use of the argumentum ad ignorantiam and since Behe down no testable hypotheses that are in conflict with the theory of evolution by the scientific community. Therefore, the irreducible complexity of philosophers of science is viewed as an example of creationist pseudoscience, in which a kind God Lückenbüßerrolle ( God of the gaps ) belongs. 2001 Michael Behe himself admitted that his work including holding an error and the operation of natural selection would not respond.
Legal disputes
Kitzmiller v. Dover case in Area School District ( 2005) Behe swore under oath that his complexity concept evolution mechanisms are not exclusive and that there had been no audited by auditors against products in an independent journal; it would lead basing its argument that certain complex molecular structures ' irreducibly complex ' are. As a result, the court concluded that Intelligent Design is not a science, but essentially religious nature is. During the trial, Behe's assertions by Ken Miller was decisively contradicted, he showed that for systems that keeps Behe complex irreducible, in nature, there are also simpler versions that still work ( blood clotting cascade) or another function have ( flagellum ). In the new edition of " Darwin's Black Box " Behe refers in an additional epilogue position to not proceed strictly according to his definition of irreducible complexity in his eyes was. Miller would assume that none of the components of the system may have a function. But Behe believes that this should be the case only for the overall functioning of the system. Therefore, Miller's argument would meet ( for parts of the structure may be a function are shown in a different context ) Behe's definition does not. Behe made it clear that for him comes as a refutation only the full emergence of the systems given by him under laboratory conditions in question.
Charles Darwin and the emergence of complex organs
Arguments against evolution, which irreduzibeler of the thought patterns and possible by the absence of functional intermediates go out, are very old, even if the definition used in this case corresponds to that of today by Behe.
Already Charles Darwin has objections to his theory dealt with similar to those which are now put forward by the term " irreducible complexity ". In the sixth chapter, difficulties of the theory of his book The Origin of Species, in which he dealt mainly potential difficulties understanding of his readers, he writes:
" Could be any evidence which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive modifications can be made a composite organ, so my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. "
Even Darwin has such objections ultimately rejected in the same chapter of his book as arguments from a lack of imagination:
" He who will go thus far, ..., ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit did a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might also be Formed by natural selection, Although in this case he does not know the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; ... "
"He who will go so far ... should not hesitate to go further and admit that a structure could be as perfect as the eye of an eagle created by natural selection even though the transitional forms is not known in this case. His reason should gain the upper hand over his imagination; .. "
He has also been pointed out that institutions may have completely different functions in the course of their development.
Criticism
The evolutionary biologists feel that the concept of useless and biased: Who lays the hypothesis that a system can not evolve into several stages, must not only all possible " paths " of development know, but can also show that among the once ruling that system boundary conditions could not go to the function of maturity. This evidence is from today. In addition, from Behe's definition irreducible complex traits follows only that the gradual emergence of the individual structural proteins of the feature with respect is not positive selectable on the final function of the system. However, it would be a capital fallacy to assume that irreducibly complex structures could be built on this " direct path " and not in stages.
First, it is often not necessary to cumulate many independent mutations to cooperative rebuild a system. On the contrary, many mutations change more or less the entire system. If now some or most of the components have evolved irreducibly complex traits in other contexts and self-assemble in a single step so that a new function is created, the conditions of evolution opponents would be irrelevant. In addition, features may also have a dual function, so that the long -term positive evaluation of a function could bring the irreducible structure on a side road to the function of maturity. How this could be going on, has been widely theoretically explained eg of Orr; However, these authors bring no experimental evidence for it. The Informationstheoretikerin Suzanne Sadedin presented a simulation based on Behe's definition before, in the geometric objects by 6 or more generations developed irreducibly - complex properties. The objects evoluierten doing the "detour " complex but reducible structures, which were multi-functional.
The actual reasoning using " irreducible complexity " in microbiological systems is not new and specific to the intelligent design movement. So the creationists Henry Morris (1974, ' Scientific Creationism ') and Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen (1984, ' The Mystery of Life's Origin. Reassessing Current Theories ') can be found in publications substantially identical modes of argumentation, as in today's ID movement. This is seen by critics as one of several documents that the intelligent design movement is a part of creationism and is only attempted by the use of new names for old arguments, feign strategic reasons a distance to creationism.
Importance in science and politics
At present no irreducible complex structure are observed whose origin could be excluded proven by natural mechanisms. Here, however, the intelligent design representative would be in the burden of proof if they want to use the idea of irreducible complex structures as a starting point the argument for a designer. But there are also fundamental philosophical objections against this type of reasoning, such as the classic critique of David Hume on the design argument, or even be an argument against a rationally justified belief in miracles. Therefore, the argument for design is considered with reference to irreducible complexity as epistemologically irrelevant.
The concept of irreducible complexity is a central element of content as the propagated under the heading of intelligent design system of thought, which is particularly widespread in the U.S. and there undergoes political support particularly from the religious right. Critics accuse the intelligent design movement to be a veiled tactical reasons creationism and religiously motivated primarily aims to hide behind a seemingly scientific theory.