Irreducible complexity refers to a system (e.g., a living organism) in which the various parts work together to produce a given function, such that the function will not occur if any of the parts is removed. Creationists claim irreducible complexity disproves evolution.
Evolution refers to the natural adaptation of a species to its environment over time, usually going from a more simple or basic form to one that is more complex or advanced. In other words, evolution refers to genetic specialization over time, as time moves forward.
Unlike the case with evolution (progression from simple to complex as time moves forward), irreducible complexity starts with a highly evolved, complex organism and proposes to work backwards in time, subtracting pieces. “Look,” the creationist will say, “if we turn time backwards, by subtracting pieces from a complex organism, the organism will stop functioning. Therefore, evolution is disproved.”
Oh really? If evolution is about genetic progression (from simple to complex) as time moves forward, and irreducible complexity is about genetic regression (from complex to simple) — essentially going backwards in time — then isn’t it obvious that evolution and irreducible complexity have absolutely nothing to do with each other? Far from disproving evolution, irreducible complexity is a total non sequitur. The essence of the creationist “irreducible complexity” argument is that evolution can’t run backwards, therefore evolution is disproved. What utter nonsense.
Print this post [1]
[2]