For the same reason they keep bringing up 2LoT, radiocarbon dating, “why are there still monkeys?” and other broken arguments. It’s all they’ve got.
rietpluimsays
1996? Boy, time does fly.
And why they keep bringing it up, is because they can’t keep up with you the moment you bring up actual science.
nomdeplumesays
IC is simply a complete failure to understand evolution working by gradually assembling structures (PZ’s scaffold is another way of saying this). It is in the same class of “problem” as “if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys”. I assume Behe is not a stupid man, so the fact that he can’t, or won’t, see this is yet another case of the triumph of religious irrationality.
microraptorsays
nomdeplume @3:
Or at the very least it’s a triumph of him desperately needing a paycheck and having no credibility to get a more legitimate job.
nomdeplumesays
microraptor @4 – There does indeed seem to be money in contrarianism these days.
wajimsays
Lucid and somewhat piqued. If you were Katherine Hepburn I’d ask you to marry me.
I took a motorcycle transmission apart once and it was irreducibly complex, therefore god.
Just kidding. I didn’t understand it, is all.
Snarki, child of Lokisays
“People still bring up irreducible complexity. Why? WHY? WHY?”
Irreducible stupidity, of course.
microraptorsays
nomdeplume @5: I think there’s been money in it for a long time. Too many people who spout this nonsense are too well-educated to not know what the evidence actually is.
StonedRangersays
Why? Because it is the ineluctable modality of creationists/IDers. They simply cannot help themselves.
chigau (違う)says
I really liked all the explaining.
.
That last minute was straight-up, youtube asshole.
chigau (違う)says
wajim #6
That might be a Zen koan.
billyjoesays
Marcus Ranum,
I took a motorcycle transmission apart once and it was irreducibly complex…
You should have thrown all those parts into the air. They surely would have fallen back to earth reassembled.
davidc1says
@7 I am so nosey ,what make of Motorcycle was it?
rietpluimsays
You should have thrown all those parts into the air. They surely would have fallen back to earth reassembled.
Don’t you need a tornado in the junk yard for that?
To the OP:
Thanks for the video, PZ. I’ve never realized that the link between “this is irreducibly complex” and “so it cannot be evolved” is a false one. All refutations I’ve seen so far, demonstrate that things can evolve / have evolved and therefore by implication are not irreducibly complex, even Behe’s favorite examples like mouse traps and the human eye. The notion that evolution may produce irreducibly complex structures (by Behe’s own definition) is new to me.
Hey, PZ! Delighted that you remembered my infamous Mousetrap Tie Clip, which I still wear from time to time as a fashion statement. And you even used one of my lecture slides (just before the 5:00 minute mark) showing the other uses that parts of a toeclip can be put to. Just like you, I get IC thrown at me from time to time, often by people who seem to be unaware of just how thoroughly the concept was destroyed in Kitzmiller v. Dover. A great job on the video! (Ken Miller)
@rietpluim #15:
I don’t see any problems with explaining IC structures using evolution. Let’s say we find the perfect example, a “mechanism” composed of multiple parts. It needs all parts to have any function whatsoever, none of which has any other functions.
The IC-argument requires it to be assembled in the current configuration, but once you factor in evolution it’s easy to explain. All the current parts have evolved from a much more primitive configuration that wasn’t IC.
IC only works if someone can prove that a certain arrangement cannot possible be altered in any way whatsoever, not even by a single atom, and still do useful work. And that is simply not possible.
rietpluimsays
Erlend Meyer Why, yes, I understand that. I just hadn’t thought of it that way.
rietpluimsays
IMHO the biggest flaw of IC is not the claim that some structures did not evolve – the burden of proof lies by the biologists who claim that they did – but the claim that some structures cannot have evolved. This means IC proponents have to rule out every single possibility by which those structures may have evolved. Not did evolve, but only may have.
wcorvisays
I enjoy chatting with these IC-types. I tell them there is something I don’t understand about it. I ask them if anything which is irreducibly complex must have had a creator? I ask them if God is complex? They quickly see where this is going….
Rietpluim: Exactly. Simply put they’re trying to disprove evolution by not allowing for it.
rietpluimsays
Simply put they’re trying to disprove evolution by not allowing for it.
Wow, never have I seen a few decades of creationism been described so briefly and accurately!
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays
@kenmiller:
Nice to hear about your tie clip! I don’t remember if I heard about it before the Nova episode, but I remember it very clearly from KvD: Intelligent Design on Trial and loved it. It tickles me to think you’re still getting use out of it.
billyjoesays
reitpluim,
Don’t you need a tornado in the junk yard for that?
How silly of me to forget….yeah, change that to: throw those motor part into a junk yard and wait for a tornado to blow through it. They will surely reassemble themselves into a motorcycle motor.
I’ve never realized that the link between “this is irreducibly complex” and “so it cannot be evolved” is a false one. All refutations I’ve seen so far, demonstrate that things can evolve / have evolved and therefore by implication are not irreducibly complex…The notion that evolution may produce irreducibly complex structures (by Behe’s own definition) is new to me.
Interesting.
I’ve always seen that as the main argument: Yes, there are structures that are IC, as Behe said, but, contrary to what Behe said, they certainly could have evolved, and here is how. And, I’ve always seen the destruction of some of their examples are NOT actually being examples of IC as a secondary argument.
billyjoesays
wcorvi,
I ask them if God is complex?
Incredibly, there are theologians who insist that God is simple.
It even has a name: Divine Simplicity.
Here is a link:
For the same reason they keep bringing up 2LoT, radiocarbon dating, “why are there still monkeys?” and other broken arguments. It’s all they’ve got.
1996? Boy, time does fly.
And why they keep bringing it up, is because they can’t keep up with you the moment you bring up actual science.
IC is simply a complete failure to understand evolution working by gradually assembling structures (PZ’s scaffold is another way of saying this). It is in the same class of “problem” as “if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys”. I assume Behe is not a stupid man, so the fact that he can’t, or won’t, see this is yet another case of the triumph of religious irrationality.
nomdeplume @3:
Or at the very least it’s a triumph of him desperately needing a paycheck and having no credibility to get a more legitimate job.
microraptor @4 – There does indeed seem to be money in contrarianism these days.
Lucid and somewhat piqued. If you were Katherine Hepburn I’d ask you to marry me.
I took a motorcycle transmission apart once and it was irreducibly complex, therefore god.
Just kidding. I didn’t understand it, is all.
“People still bring up irreducible complexity. Why? WHY? WHY?”
Irreducible stupidity, of course.
nomdeplume @5: I think there’s been money in it for a long time. Too many people who spout this nonsense are too well-educated to not know what the evidence actually is.
Why? Because it is the ineluctable modality of creationists/IDers. They simply cannot help themselves.
I really liked all the explaining.
.
That last minute was straight-up, youtube asshole.
wajim #6
That might be a Zen koan.
Marcus Ranum,
You should have thrown all those parts into the air. They surely would have fallen back to earth reassembled.
@7 I am so nosey ,what make of Motorcycle was it?
Don’t you need a tornado in the junk yard for that?
To the OP:
Thanks for the video, PZ. I’ve never realized that the link between “this is irreducibly complex” and “so it cannot be evolved” is a false one. All refutations I’ve seen so far, demonstrate that things can evolve / have evolved and therefore by implication are not irreducibly complex, even Behe’s favorite examples like mouse traps and the human eye. The notion that evolution may produce irreducibly complex structures (by Behe’s own definition) is new to me.
Hey, PZ! Delighted that you remembered my infamous Mousetrap Tie Clip, which I still wear from time to time as a fashion statement. And you even used one of my lecture slides (just before the 5:00 minute mark) showing the other uses that parts of a toeclip can be put to. Just like you, I get IC thrown at me from time to time, often by people who seem to be unaware of just how thoroughly the concept was destroyed in Kitzmiller v. Dover. A great job on the video! (Ken Miller)
@rietpluim #15:
I don’t see any problems with explaining IC structures using evolution. Let’s say we find the perfect example, a “mechanism” composed of multiple parts. It needs all parts to have any function whatsoever, none of which has any other functions.
The IC-argument requires it to be assembled in the current configuration, but once you factor in evolution it’s easy to explain. All the current parts have evolved from a much more primitive configuration that wasn’t IC.
IC only works if someone can prove that a certain arrangement cannot possible be altered in any way whatsoever, not even by a single atom, and still do useful work. And that is simply not possible.
Erlend Meyer Why, yes, I understand that. I just hadn’t thought of it that way.
IMHO the biggest flaw of IC is not the claim that some structures did not evolve – the burden of proof lies by the biologists who claim that they did – but the claim that some structures cannot have evolved. This means IC proponents have to rule out every single possibility by which those structures may have evolved. Not did evolve, but only may have.
I enjoy chatting with these IC-types. I tell them there is something I don’t understand about it. I ask them if anything which is irreducibly complex must have had a creator? I ask them if God is complex? They quickly see where this is going….
Rietpluim: Exactly. Simply put they’re trying to disprove evolution by not allowing for it.
Wow, never have I seen a few decades of creationism been described so briefly and accurately!
@kenmiller:
Nice to hear about your tie clip! I don’t remember if I heard about it before the Nova episode, but I remember it very clearly from KvD: Intelligent Design on Trial and loved it. It tickles me to think you’re still getting use out of it.
reitpluim,
How silly of me to forget….yeah, change that to: throw those motor part into a junk yard and wait for a tornado to blow through it. They will surely reassemble themselves into a motorcycle motor.
Interesting.
I’ve always seen that as the main argument: Yes, there are structures that are IC, as Behe said, but, contrary to what Behe said, they certainly could have evolved, and here is how. And, I’ve always seen the destruction of some of their examples are NOT actually being examples of IC as a secondary argument.
wcorvi,
Incredibly, there are theologians who insist that God is simple.
It even has a name: Divine Simplicity.
Here is a link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity
Presumably the name for those theologians would be “Divine Simpletons”?