The problem then, though, is that it doesn’t disprove evolution. If you allow adding parts, then that opens the possibility of a scaffolding. And if you only consider the original function of the system, then you ignore the fact that subassemblies may serve other functions that may have been selected for.

I find it mind-boggling that creationists can claim the impossibility of disproving God somehow adds credibility to the God hypothesis, yet when they readily try to disprove the undisprovable with this IC nonsense – with the exact opposite result: “I can’t disprove evolution in this case, hence evolution never happened” – this opposed to “I can’t disprove God, hence God exists”.

Never mind, my argument makes no less sense than anything the DI has put out there.

Just think how much money you could be making, writing articles and books in support of ID, and generally fleecing the credulous masses, if it weren’t for those pesky ethics.

Thanks, Arensb, for continuing to advance the cause of rationalism! Happy 2009!

Unfortunately, I suspect that we’ll be stuck with irreducible complexity for the foreseeable future.

You’re right, of course, but that doesn’t mean we can’t mock the IDiots.

I’ve never managed to get my head around why IC is so appealing.

Well, it does make sense, at least theoretically: if it’s possible to demonstrate that there’s no way to get from A to B by some mechanism X, then it’s logical to conclude that X does not explain the transition from A to B.

As you point out further down, actually demonstrating it is trickier than it sounds, but the general outline is sound.

that doesn’t mean that such a system can’t be constructed from a system of N + 1 parts which in tern came from a non-IC system.

I think you’re talking about Gothic arches, right? An arch is an IC system: each stone helps prop up the entire structure, and if you remove any stone, the whole thing collapses. And, per Behe’s argument, it’s impossible to build an arch by adding one stone at a time.

So the way to build an arch is to build a scaffolding that’ll keep the incomplete arch from collapsing. Once the last stone is in place, you remove the scaffolding.

Also, I’m not much of a CS/math guy, but IIRC, formally proving programs and the like to be “minimal” is a pretty damned difficult thing to do anyway. I would think that proving something “irreducible” would be a similar burden.

Pretty much, yeah, as I recall. I remember seeing a few such proofs in math class, and thinking that they were rather beautiful. I’ve heard of similar things in engineering, where there’s a formula describing the most efficient steam engine possible, or something like that. The person who told me about this said the math wasn’t 100% certain the way that mathematical proofs are, but is based on some very reasonable assumptions.

The flaw (or one flaw) with Behe’s argument is that he simplifies the problem in order to make it solvable: he says that if you remove any part of the bacterial flagellum, it no longer functions as a flagellum. But what he needs to demonstrate is that if you remove any part of a flagellum, it no longer functions as anything (or rather, isn’t something that could have been selected for).

And that is much, much harder to show. Kind of like demonstrating the absence of a leak in a tire, without actually immersing it in water.

I’ve never managed to get my head around why IC is so appealing. Even if we assume that there are systems with N parts that cannot function with N – 1 parts, that doesn’t mean that such a system can’t be constructed from a system of N + 1 parts which in tern came from a non-IC system. It’s like seeing a climber who has climbed himself down a cliff face and gotten stuck and assuming that he can fly because there’s no path up to where he is.

Also, I’m not much of a CS/math guy, but IIRC, formally proving programs and the like to be “minimal” is a pretty damned difficult thing to do anyway. I would think that proving something “irreducible” would be a similar burden.