Intelligent Design: Irreducible Complexity?

[OfficerVajardian]

I have recently been wondering about Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design.

I think that Irreducible Complexity is just a reformed "God of the Gaps" argument. For example, my Religious Studies (yes, I had to take that class) teacher used the Human Eye as "evidence' for I.D.. It was along the lines of:

"Oh! Look at the human eye! It's so complex! It's retina, it's muscles connecting to it, the cornea, etc... It could have only be designed by an Intelligent Designer!"

I think it's just because humans previously did not understand how the eye works and how it was formed by evolutionary processes and therefore an Intelligent Designer was the reason. But now we DO understand the processes that created the eye and how it functions so therefore there was no reason anymore to wedge an Intelligent Designer in.

I think the same applies to the other "Irreducibly Complex" things out there.

I also think that Irreducible Complexity is self-refuting to Intelligent Design.

Why? If a Designer was omnipotent and omniscient, then why would s/he need to create something so complex? Couldn't they have created something simpler?

Please let me know what you guys think of this.

P.S. English isn't my first language I apologize in advance for any spelling and grammatical issues.

[Ben Davis]

Firstly, ! Feel free to introduce yourself to us here.

To the OP, you're right, on both counts.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It goes further than that. If there was/is a being that has omni-facets why would it want/need to 'create' anything at all? By definition it would have no wants or needs; it'd be perfect in every way.

The typical theist counter to this, and indeed to everything you've posted, is usually a version of "god moves in mysterious ways". eg. Different understanding of what omnipotence/omniscience means, or that we can't understand or follow god's (undefined) reasons or plans (itself a contradictory statement).

The trouble is, when one introduces omni-facets into a debate about existence logic gets thrown out the window. It's impossible to resolve the myriad of contradictions that it throws up (immoveable object against an unstoppable force and all that).

So really the whole eye debate is just a very small segment of what is a larger debate as to the facets of what a 'god' has, or indeed what a 'god' is. A lot of theists think they're scoring cheap points against evolution when they argue irreducible complexity of an eye. What they don't often confront is the overwhelming evidence in support of ocular evolution and how natural selection can quite easily 'create' an eye, be it a simplistic one, a compound one, or indeed a 'complex' one like the eye we human's have.

Also welcome. Your English is fine!

[OfficerVajardian]

Firstly, ! Feel free to introduce yourself to us here.

To the OP, you're right, on both counts.

Thanks for the welcome!

It goes further than that. If there was a being that has omni-facets why would it want/need to 'create' anything at all? By definition it would have no wants or needs; it'd be perfect in every way.

The typical theist counter to this, and indeed to everything you've posted, is usually a version of "gods moves in mysterious ways". eg. Different understanding of what omnipotence/omniscience means, or that we can't understand or follow god's (undefined) reasons or plans (itself a contradictory statement).

The trouble is, when one introduces omni-facets into a debate about existence logic gets thrown out the window. It's impossible to resolve the myriad of contradictions that it throws up (immoveable object against an unstoppable force and all that).

So really the whole eye debate is just a very small segment of what is a larger debate as to the facets of what a 'god' has, or indeed what a 'god' is. A lot of theists think they're scoring cheap points against evolution when they argue irreducible complexity of an eye. What they don't often confront is the overwhelming evidence in support of ocular evolution and how natural selection can quite easily 'create' an eye, be it a simplistic one, a compound one, or indeed a 'complex' one like the eye we human's have.

Also welcome. Your English is fine!

Also, just wondering, is there actually a refutation to the "Well, God is Mysterious!" argument or is it just an unfalsifiable Creationist/ID escape hatch?

My english is a bit odd. (Wait until you see me *try* to write essays!) I'm still in High School and I need to take English as a Second Language classes. lol

[Mr.wizard]

It also creates a string of never ending designers because it makes the assumption that everything complex needs a more complex designer.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Also, just wondering, is there actually a refutation to the "Well, God is Mysterious!" argument or is it just an unfalsifiable Creationist/ID escape hatch?

My english is a bit odd. (Wait until you see me *try* to write essays!) I'm still in High School and I need to take English as a Second Language classes. lol

Seriously, your English appears to be just great. If you hadn't said it wasn't your first language I'd have thought it was automatically based on the above

There can be some falsifications but it depends on the context they're using it in.

For example, as noted, if someone was to say "you/we can't know god's plan", that is a contradiction. It's presuming that you know you can't know something, which doesn't make any sense.

Other than that you could argue Occam's Razor. For example with ID proponents who posit that evolution exists but there is a guided creator. There's no evidence of course to suggest this is true, but neither is there to the contrary. However our understanding of evolution and abiogenesis doesn't need a creator to result in what we have today. IDers tend to insert god at the beginning of the equation (creation) or during it (guiding evolution). But Occam's Razor can take care of this because, due to the un-evidenced and thus unknown nature of this creator, the result appears to be the same regardless of whether it was there or not.

Also we need to consider that making an un-falsifiable statement is itself fallacious as it becomes irresolvable. There's no way to test the claim and hence no way to prove its validity. In this instance it comes entirely down to whether you accept something prima facie on faith, or whether you reject it due to its irresolvable nature (which is the standard in the scientific method).

[OfficerVajardian]

It also creates a string of never ending designers because it makes the assumption that everything complex needs a more complex designer.

I have had this occasion, when I was talking to this theist guy and someone posed the question of "How the designer got there" and the guy said:

<guy>

The Guy:

And what created the Creator? Good question, my friend. The question 'What created the Creator?' has the built-in assumption that the Creator needed to be created. No. Only things bound by the laws of physics necessarily need to be created. Don't make the mistake of trying to apply the limitations of the physical to the metaphysical, my friend.

I hope that this helps you better understand my current argument.

</guy>

[Diablo]

It also creates a string of never ending designers because it makes the assumption that everything complex needs a more complex designer.

This is the key point. The argument fails on that basis.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It also creates a string of never ending designers because it makes the assumption that everything complex needs a more complex designer.

This is the key point. The argument fails on that basis.

It's a text book example of special pleading.

[OfficerVajardian]

Also, just wondering, is there actually a refutation to the "Well, God is Mysterious!" argument or is it just an unfalsifiable Creationist/ID escape hatch?

My english is a bit odd. (Wait until you see me *try* to write essays!) I'm still in High School and I need to take English as a Second Language classes. lol

Seriously, your English appears to be to just great. If you hadn't said it wasn't your first language I'd have thought it was automatically based on the above

There can be some falsifications but it depends on the context they're using it in.

For example, as noted, if someone was to say "you/we can't know god's plan", that is a contradiction. It's presuming that you know you can't know something, which doesn't make any sense.

Other than that you could argue Occam's Razor. For example with ID proponents who posit that evolution exists but there is a guided creator. There's no evidence of course to suggest this is true, but neither is there to the contrary. However our understanding of evolution and abiogenesis doesn't need a creator to result in what we have today. IDers tend to insert god at the beginning of the equation (creation) or during it (guiding evolution). But Occam's Razor can take of this because, due to the un-evidenced and thus unknown nature of this creator, the result appears to be the same regardless of whether it was there or not.

Also we need to consider that making an un-falsifiable statement is itself fallacious as it becomes irresolvable. There's no way to test the claim and hence no way to prove its validity. In this instance it comes entirely down to whether you accept something prima facie on faith, or whether you reject it due to its irresolvable nature (which is the standard in the scientific method).

Thanks, I suppose my English ain't that bad.

Actually, your post is soo good, I might use it next time debating theists and creationists! If you don't mind, of course.

P.S.