Intelligent Design: Irreducible Complexity?

[popeyespappy]

You don't seem to know what the irreducible complexity argument is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.

In the very next paragraph the article you linked goes on to say:

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". [5] Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved,[6][7] and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity.[8] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

In this thread the the idea of the human eye being irreducibly complex by Behe's own definition has been refuted. Any number of the components of the eye can be removed, and what remains is still capable of providing a function that can offer an evolutionary advantage.



As the article states Behe's claims of irreducible complexity have been refuted. We don't don't have to know every little detail to clearly demonstrate an evolutionary path for eyes, immune systems, clotting agents or even the bacterial flagellum. Nor does anything we have learned about evolution in the past 150 years preclude the possibility of the evolution of any know biological system.