Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Basic rule of thumb regarding complexity in systems

My observation has been that intelligent design leads to simpler systems, not more complex systems. In fact, simplifying the interfaces is a keystone characteristic of good systems architecture. Now, I grant you that I'm not an 'expert' (being as I'm only purusing my degree in systems architecture), but I'm wondering if anyone has a good link off the top of their head to that effect? I could probably dig something up, but my time is at a premium right now. -Psychohistorian 14:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So modern cars with air conditioning, heated seats and more powerful computers than those used by NASA to put the first man on the moon are simpler systems than WWII Jeeps? An awful lot of mechanics would be very surprised to hear that. Windows XP is simpler than DOS? Microwave ovens are simpler than hearths? I'm sorry but your observation does not seem to hold up. Simplying the interface has little or nothing to do with simplifying the tool itself. Rossami (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A system's complexity isn't determined by what it accomplishes, but how it accomplishes it. Two systems can accomplish the exact same thing and one be more complex than the other. Go ahead and ask those mechanics you were talking about about that. -Psychohistorian 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your implied definition of "the system" is consistent in this context. Is the car the system? If so, yes the modern car does more things. Your definition would seem to imply that we should not treat the car as the system but must look only at components of completely comparable capability - maybe the drive train or the tires. Behe and others, however, argue that the eye is the system and that we must look at the complete system to determine if irreducible complexity exists. Yet modern binocular eyes with color-vision, etc do more things than proto-eyes which can only sense illumination but have no focus or discrimination. I'm having trouble reconciling your definition of "system" with the examples used in the debate here. Rossami (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"I'm having trouble reconciling your definition of "system" with the examples used in the debate here." That, I think, is because you are working from the premise that Behe et al are talking about the same subject - that they are educated in systems science when all evidence is to the contrary. What I'm trying to do is correct a huge misunderstanding about irreducible complexity - a misunderstanding which has been propogated by both critics of Behe's argument and supporters Behe and company's argument. What I'm trying to clarify is that the problem with Behe's argument isn't whether irreducible complexity, in and of itself (meaning whether or not complex systems are reducible), is a valid concept - because it most certainly is. The problem with Behe's argument is the claim that complex systems cannot evolve from simpler systems. Critics of Behe's argument are missing their target by a wide margin and, as a result, they are making it easier for Behe et al to 'debate the issues'. Let me use an analogy..in the debate about races in Homo sapien sapien, its like one side is arguing that genetic diversity proves the existence of race and the other side is arguing that genetic diversity doesn't exist. The real argument should be whether genetic diversity proves the existence of race. -Psychohistorian 16:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And all of this piffle has what exactly to do with the article? IC is defined by Behe/Dembski, anyone else's definitions have as much value as a warm bucket of hamster spit. Where you think you're going with this is unclear, but I can assure you it's OR.

BTW, it's Homo sapiens sapiens, sapien is meaningless in Latin. Also, Homo sapiens idaltu would be included (see basic anthropology). Quite honestly, if you don't know what you're on about, learn before speaking. •Jim62sch• 00:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

Removed some apparently superfluous words, removed comment on systems theory (irrelevant?) removed extremely POV text for a reference, moved apparently unreferenced reference into additional references. 124.243.178.110 03:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I've reverted the recent attempt to gloss over the controversial status of IC. I suggest long term contributors here keep an eye on the article for further attempts at whitewashing and weakening of criticisms of an argument that has almost zero support in the scientific community as documented in the Dover ruling. FeloniousMonk 19:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes as I feel that they blur the line between scientifically valid irreducible complexity and the religious usurpation of the term. I suggest that, in the future, people who are actually educated in systems science keep a close eye on this article so that the line is kept distinct.-Psychohistorian 11:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting each other without real discussion is not the right way to edit a controversial article like this. Please stop this edit war. I am restoring the article to the wording from before the start of the edit war. The disputed wording can be seen in this diff. Please discuss the changes and reach consensus here before changing the article again. If the edit war continues, the page may have to be protected from editing. I would rather that we not reach that point. Let's discuss the issues civilly. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

An edit war doesn't begin until, at least, someone reverts someone else's content. So, the article is now at the state it was before the edit war (except for the link to Behe which is outside of the debate). Other than that, I agree that further changes on the article on this subject need to be discussed before the edits are made.-Psychohistorian 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated in policy, "the term [describes] two or more contributors' repeated reverts of one another's edits to an article". As I said, the edit war didn't start until the first reversion.-Psychohistorian 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your take on edit-warring. Now, let's try to get something clear: This article is part of the Intelligent Design series, a series about a controversial form of creationism masquerading as science. If you wish to babble on about IC in some other discipline, create a disambig page and an article on your version of IC (assuming you can find any sources that meet WP:V, WP:RS and don't violate WP:NOR). Capisce? •Jim62sch• 00:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, what am I suppossed to discusss? FeloniousMonk is ignorant of systems science if he thinks pointing out that the concept of irreducible complexity, as used in systems science, is valid is a 'whitewash' of the religous argument. There are countless websites where he can go to educate himself on this subject. I did a web search and the very first site I hit was this one. So, its not like its hard to educate yourself. I'm not going to let this issue be ignored. I will edit it back after 24 hours. I'm not going to let the current article, which is based on flagrant ignorance, remain the way it is. -Psychohistorian 18:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the change, it appears to me that the core thesis of your edit is that "irreducible complexity" had a meaning independent of the "religious argument" which you attribute to Behe. Presumably, that meaning must have pre-dated Behe. Yet the first line of article you cite asserts that Behe coined the phrase and discusses the concept only in the context of Behe's assertions. My own google search for irreducible complexity failed to turn up any relevant hits in any context other than the one discussed in this article. I remain confused. Rossami (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that it is you who are confused. •Jim62sch• 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

An example of "irreducible complexity" being used outside of teleology [1] indicating the distinction I've tried to make in this article between the two uses of the concept.-Psychohistorian 18:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that. It shows that the notion of complexities that are irreducible is used outside of the ID debate, a notion that is alreadly known, not challenged and may warrant mention here. But it does not in any way prove that Behe's notion Irreducible Complexity, that complexity requires a designer, is accepted by mainstream scientists and educators, something we need to be careful to avoid implying. FeloniousMonk 18:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"..something we need to be careful to avoid implying." And, I feel, my original edit (the one which you reverted and which started this issue) did a good job of avoiding doing that.-Psychohistorian 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is about Irreducible Complexity, the lynchpin argument in ID's argument for the existence of God, not the notion in Systems theory that systems can be distilled only so far. Your change to the intro was appropriate to the Systems theory article, not an ID article. Now you can add those changes to this article's Forerunners subsection of the History section where IC's relation to systems theory is detailed, or you could create a separate 'Irreducible complexity (systems theory)' article for it, or you create a section addressing IC, systems theory in the existing Systems theory article, but altering an article about an ID concept to read about systems theory is not going to fly. FeloniousMonk 19:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is called "Irreducible complexity". It is -not- called "Irreducible complexity as used by Behe et al". If it were called that, you'd have a point. If it were called that, I wouldn't be making my objection.-Psychohistorian 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is titled "Irreducible complexity" but it is not necessarily supposed to cover all uses of that term or variations of that concept. By convention here on Wikipedia, when an article's title may refer to more than one topic the unadorned title is given to the most common or popular usage. All other topics get a "disambiguation" title. The disambiguation is usually shown by putting the subject area after the title in parentheses - Pagename (subject area).
If you want to change the focus of the page to be first on the systems theory concept, we would have to be able to show that most readers searching on this term would be looking for the systems theory concept rather than for Behe's concept. Based on the evidence I can find, I doubt that's the case. I would endorse Felonious' suggestion. Improve the article's existing Forerunners section with a deeper discussion of the systems theory concept and provide an appropriate link to a more detailed article on systems theory for those who want to explore in that direction.
By the way, it would be helpful if you found a better cite than the one above. I have to admit that I wasn't very impressed by the paper's intellectual rigor. Just as a quick example, in Section 2 the authors attempt to define "systems thinking". Their definition is summed up in a sentence in the second paragraph which reads "We take systems thinking to be make up of the beliefs and perspectives embodied by the disciplines and practices that claim to embody systems thinking." That kind of circular reasoning seriously undercut my opinion of their credibility. Rossami (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the edit that has been disputed, you'll see that it is a very brief tap on the shoulder of systems science before going on to explain that intelligent design proponents use it in another way and explaining the difference between the two uses. It acts as a brief disambiguation.-Psychohistorian 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether to add the proper definition of irreducible complexity

I was not aware that consensus was ever reached. Just letting the issue drop is not consensus.-Psychohistorian 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon? •Jim62sch• 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Id respond if I knew what you are finding hard to understand.-Psychohistorian 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed to which project this page belongs? •Jim62sch• 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pages can belong to many projects. There is no doubt that one definition of IC is related to Creationism. But there is also no doubt that another definition - the definition which has merit in the scientific community - does not. -Psychohistorian 11:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Because noone is disputing this content any longer and no consensus has been reached regarding whether to put it in the article, I'll be restoring the disputed content. -Psychohistorian 11:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Flogging the flagellum

• what Behe says he means by irreducible complexity is that the flagellum could not work without about 40 protein components all organized in the right way. [2]

But I'm still reading black box, so you'll have to forgive me. --Uncle Ed 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

From the Dover trial ruling, where Behe's argument for IC was reviewed against published scientific research:

We initially note that irreducible complexity as defined by Professor Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box and subsequently modified in his 2001 article entitled “Reply to My Critics,” appears as follows:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is 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. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional . . . Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. P-647 at 39; P-718 at 694.

Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My Critics” that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address “the task facing natural selection.” (P-718 at 695). Professor Behe specifically explained that “[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an alreadyfunctioning system,” but “[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.” Id. In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect in future work;” however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect. Id.; 22:61-65 (Behe). [3]

All versions of Darwin's Black Box still retain the various issues with Behe's claim detailed in the Dover ruling, as such it has to taken with a grain of salt. FeloniousMonk 21:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here Ed, this might help:

The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999). •Jim62sch• 00:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about systems

Quite simply, one of the core issues in this article is whether or not complex systems can evolve from simple systems. Noone has presented a meaningful distinction between such systems in biology and such systems composed of other things. Until someone does so, it is original research to act as if there is such a distinction. What that means is that proving that complex systems have evolved from simple systems is absolutely relevant and meaningful content in describing the issue. -Psychohistorian 12:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh no, it is not. Did you happen to notice the Intelligent Design Series template at the top? Did you think it was there for aesthetic reasons? Obviously, you are not reading the article, are you? Did you note that Behe's definition of IC as it relates to ID is a key component? If anything is OR here, it's your edits -- you are attempting to add your interpretation of IC, unrelated to ID, into the article. That dog ain't gonna hunt...hell, that dops ain't gettin' off the porch.

BTW, the global economic system is not irreducibly complex, it is dynamic and changes as needed, that dynamism, and those changes negating the concept irreduciblity. •Jim62sch• 12:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yes, it is. The fact that the Inteeligent Design template is on the page has no relevance to the central issue. Irreducible complexity, in the context of religion, claims that biological systems have irreducible complextiy and, consequently, cannot evolve from simpler systems. Therefore, the issue is whether complex systems can evolve from simple systems. And, by the way, all evolutionary systems are dynamic - including biological systems. There is nothing in the definition of irreducible complexity which states that irreducibly complex systems can't be dynamic (if they were, biological systems couldn't be irreducibly complex).-Psychohistorian 12:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And, incidentally, you are now guilty of breaking the three revert rule - something that can get you banned from Wikipedia. I suggest that you revert your last reversion. -Psychohistorian 12:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope dude, I reverted you twice. You really need to learn how to count. If you're feelin' froggy, though, jump -- file a 3RR vio. You're gonna have a hell of a time coming up with three diffs to match your asertion, but, hey, a little Keystone Kops humour is good for the soul.

Also, you are engaging in OR with your pronouncements re IC, in fact, your having a bit of a problem with the concept of irreducible from what I can see. •Jim62sch• 13:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by the American Society for Microbiology on Evolution

For the editors of this page. This linkis a statement by the American Society for Microbiology on Evolution and also mentions irreducible complexity. It may be of use as a supporting reference in the article.--LexCorp 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, depending on how and where you were planning on using it. The key sentence is this The use of the supposed "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum as an argument to endow nonscientific concepts with what appears to be legitimacy, is spurious and not based on fact. In other words, it is debunking the intelligent design concept of irreducible complexity. •Jim62sch• 13:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled on a page that might have relevance here

As this is a contentious article, I figured I'd bring the point to the talk page first. this talk origins post references some theory that appears relevant. I was considering adding some of the references mentioned as points in the criticisms section. Anyone want to indicate if this is a good or bad idea? i kan reed 09:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a beginner at editing Wikipedia, so excuse any faux pas on my part. I've just added a few lines on the "forerunners" - it seemed to me to purely factual, so I didn't see a need to enter into a discussion on the point - and I was contemplating putting in another couple of lines on Muller - something like this:

In the early 20th century Hermann Muller wrote about "interlocking" biological features as a consequence to be expected of evolution.

The article that you're mentioned refers to the first article, but I think that the second one (although not accessible online) is also worth mentioning.

Muller as a forerunner of "irreducible complexity" has been mentioned several times. I think that it was H. Allen Orr who first brought it up in a review of "Darwin's Black Box" in the Boston Review, online at [4], Muller is also mentioned in Mark Isaak's extensive "Index of Creationist Claims" CB200 [5].

Tom S.

Be very careful with the "forerunner" appellation -- Muller's premise is entirely different and that must be made clear. In Muller's version, interlocking complexity is the result of evolution, not, as is irreducible complexity, it's antithesis. Also, while this could fit into the article is added properly, there is no proof that I've seen that Behe knew of the existence of Muller's concept, so we need to be careful not to say the Behe borrowed the concept, or otherwise relied upon it, absent sources meeting WP:V and WP:RS.

BTW Tom, sign your post with 4 tildes ~~~~ and your name and link to your user/talk pages will come up. •Jim62sch• 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. (I hope I'll get the hang of this soon.) First of all, I hadn't thought about how my earlier remarks about Gassendi and others could be read as suggesting that Behe was following up on their ideas. Therefore, I think that it's appropriate to clarify what I had written. I suggest that something like this would be appropriate -

Although there is no indication that these earliest forerunners had any influence on the development of the concept of irreducible complexity, the idea that the interrelationship between parts of living things would have implications for their origins was raised by writers starting with Pierre Gassendi in the mid 17th century (De Generatione Animalium, chapter III); in the early 18th century, Nicolas Malebranche (De la recherche de la verité 6.2.4, 6th edition, 1712) used this idea to argue in favor of preformation (see homunculus), rather than full development (see epigenesis), of the individual embryo; and a similar argument about the origins of the individual was made by other 18th century students of natural history. In a different application, in the early 19th century Georges Cuvier used the concept of "correlation of parts" in establishing the anatomy of animals from fragmentary remains.

OK?

As far as Muller is concerned, perhaps a few extra words would make this clearer -

Rather than being an argument against evolution, in the early 20th century Hermann Muller wrote about "interlocking" biological features as a consequence to be expected of evolution.

TomS TDotO 10:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that my attempt to caution the reader that "forerunners" may not have influence on later developments was considered "speculative" and not concise. I'm not going to argue about that. Certainly I will admit to not having the best writing style, and I must concede that I didn't get my point across. I hope that my latest revision of remarks on Muller will be better received. For your comments before I try them, here they are:

[[Hermann Joseph Muller|Hermann Muller]], in the early 20th century, discussed a concept similar to irreducible complexity, but it was not problematic for evolution. Rather, he wrote about the "interlocking" of biological features as a consequence to be expected of evolution, which would lead to irreversibility of some evolutionary changes.<ref>[http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/3/5/422 Hermann J. Muller: Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors, ''Genetics'' 1918 3: 422-499], especially pages 463-464.</ref> :''Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary.''<ref>Herman J. Muller: Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics, ''Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society'', 4(3) 1939, 261-280, quotation from page 272.</ref>

TomS TDotO 15:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparison between irreducible complexity in systems theory and in intelligent design

Something needs to be done about the statement in the introduction: "Intelligent design proponents believe that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve from simple systems, while systems researchers have identified systems which have done exactly this" (or, in its previous form: "Intelligent design proponents claim irreducibly complex systems can't evolve from simple systems. Systems researchers can point to systems which have done exactly that."

In either case - by simple application of logic to the sentences - the sentence states that ID proponents say that N cannot occur, and then states that it is a fact that N occurs; the only possible logical resolution of which is "Intelligent design proponents are wrong". Now, I believe that, and probably most of you do too, but I can't see that it fits with the Neutral Point of View policy. If the issue was that simple, the debate and the article wouldn't exist.

I think that the problem occurs in that we are presenting as a fact that emergence as understood by systems theorists is exactly equivalent to the evolution of irreducibly complex biological structures as understood by systems theorists; and that therefore the phenomena observed by systems theorists necessarily require the possibility of the evolution of irreducible complexity in the precise form that intelligent design proponents dispute. This isn't referenced or expanded on, and the note at the top of the article says that this article does not concern emergence; meanwhile, the Emergence article states that emergence is controversial and scientists disagree on how it should be defined and what constitutes it; so I'm not sure that this is a necessarily valid inference and it probably constitutes original research.

Any suggestions for a more neutral drafting? TSP 12:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That has more to do with a problem with the Emergence article, not with this article. The Emergence article doesn't have any inline citations for reasons which I'm unclear about. However, a careful reading of the Emergence article makes it clear that what is debatable about emergence is specifically what qualifies as an emergent property, not whether emergence exists. I find it rather curious, also, that that article doesn't provide any verifiable sources for the claim that what is an emergent property is questionable (which suggests that -that- article is making an unverifiable claim). But, having said that, the debate (at least within the scientific community) doesn't exist. The debate (within the society) does exist, but that is because society judges the weight of issues on other criteria than whether or not something is objectively true. It is because the debate exists within society that the article exists.-Psychohistorian 13:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. So is the point that the scientific community agrees that "evolution of irreducible complexity" is the same thing as "emergence", and that the phenomenon exists? If so, that's fine: we can assert that, and it should be easy to provide citations for. The problem is that at the moment we assert it as a fact, with no citation, after identifying a group that does not agree with it. For most readers, saying "the scientific community agrees n" will give them the same impression as "n is true"; but it's a statement we can back up. TSP 16:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a number of such sources, here's a couple:

• Per Bak, How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality, Copernicus Books, 1996, ISBN 0-387-94791-4, ISBN 0-387-98738-X.
• John Holland, Emergence: From Chaos to Order Addison-Wesley, 1997 ISBN 0-201-14943-5, ISBN 0-7382-0142-1
• Steven Johnson, Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software, 2001, ISBN 0-684-86875-X ISBN 0-684-86876-8
• Tom De Wolf, Tom Holvoet, Emergence Versus Self-Organisation: Different Concepts but Promising When Combined, In Engineering Self Organising Systems: Methodologies and Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 3464, pp 1-15, 2005, (download here)
• Christian Prehofer, Christian Bettstetter, Self-Organization in Communication Networks: Principles and Design Paradigms, IEEE Communications Magazine, July 2005.
• Ricard V. Solé and Jordi Bascompte, Selforganization in Complex Ecosystems, Princeton U. Press, 2006.

FeloniousMonk 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence

The article currently contains the sentence:

On some occasions, structures once believed to be irreducibly complex, have later been explained biologically.

This doesn't make sense as the system, whether irreducibly complex or not, is biological either way. Hackwrench 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Infinite regress

I feel that there is one section missing in the criticism department - an argument put forward by Dawkins, Bennet and many others: IC used as an argument for an "ultimate" designer inevitable results in an infinite regress. The ID model is a top-down construction with something more complex creating something less complex: i.e man designs watch, god designs man. However, you are then left with the question of who designed god, and then who designed the designer who designed god etc.. In short, you'll have an infinite regress of irreducibly complex designers. If you on the other hand accept that the designer can be more simple than the item designed, well, then you've shot down your own theory.

Given that it's called "intelligent" design, it is implied that the designer is not a simple entity, but a very complex one - much more complex than the entities it has designed. Thus if the design by such a designer is irreducibly complex, then the designer must be irreducibly complex and according to their own theory must have a designer.

Any objections to adding a subsection to the criticism section explaining this argument? --Denoir 10:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. It's a notable arguement. However, I'd be inclined to put it somewhat low on the page: The scientific rebuttal should come before the philosophic. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Status of IC

The ruling in the Dover trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) discredited IC as a method and the claims of both Behe and his peers that it is a meaningful and useful tool. An accurate and complete article needs to reflect this. I've noted this in the article and added cites to the relevant parts of the Dover trial ruling: [6],[7] FeloniousMonk 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's your personal interpretation of the Dover trial. Personal interpretation may not be written in wikipedia articles (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR). You may write opinions discussed in relevant sources, if you source them and if you qualify them with the name of the person who represents these opinions; if it is not something all sides of a controversial topic agree upon. --Rtc 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. Read the ruling. FeloniousMonk 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you're way over the WP:3RR limit. FeloniousMonk 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try to spread the false claim that I hit 3RR limit; I did not. I added the source in a different way, without giving a personal interpretation of the court's opinion. The court did not rule that IC is discredited; and even if it had done that doesn't give you permission to claim in Wikipedia that it's actually discredited.--Rtc 19:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert blindly, but see that A) I added the source, just in a different way. B) I added some improvements, such as removing weasel words, C) I added some sources, such as the Adami paper. --Rtc 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, please do not edit war. I see you were blocked for violating 3RR, so please use the time off to reconsider how you intend to contribute here. FeloniousMonk 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Discredited

Here's the direct quote from the source, "We therefore find 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." -Psychohistorian 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try if there is some better way to include it. --Rtc 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

While IC isn't supported by any data, the "discredited" attribute is a bit vague and probably too NPOV for the definition. Something along the lines of

"Irreducible complexity is a hypothesis that states that certain biological systems.."

follwed by a statement that it is unsupported by data and not considered to be a credible hypothesis by the scientific community. If you for instance look at the Flat Earth article you can see something similar.--Denoir 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, call a spade a spade. Wishy-washy statements in cases where there's clear consensus against something seem to be giving undue weight to the pseudoscience, in my opinion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight would be if it was presented as a mainstream theory, which it is not - most of the article is about how it isn't scientific. For good form however an article should start with a definition and the definition of IC does not include it being discredited. In the same way if you look at say Intelligent design, Creationism or Homeopathy you'll see a definition of it first - not what the scientific consensus is. The same goes for any other field. In the George W. Bush article it doesn't say "George W. Bush is the unpopular president of..". The arguments for or against something should come after the definition. If you include criticism or support in the definition, then nothing meaningful can follow and consensus will be impossible.

Second, saying that it is a "discredited" hypothesis is very questionable as there is no such thing as "discredited" in the scientific language. The hypothesis isn't falsifiable (which makes it unsuitable as a scientific theory, but still perfectly valid as a hypothesis) and in the end experimental science can't prove or disprove anything - it can only say that a theory is supported or unsupported by data. Yes, IC is a load of rubbish, but that has to be expressed correctly or the arguments against it will be just an opinion. --Denoir 00:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A thorough and clear analysis of irreducible complexity and its relation to the scientific community was conducted by in the Dover trial, and its ruling is unambiguous, notable, and relevant:

• " We therefore find 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."[8]
• "the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980" [9]

I don't agree with your points, but since we already have a credible source that supports the article, whether I agree or not is unimportant; we'll just quote the Dover ruling. FeloniousMonk 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, a legal ruling in a US court is hardly a suitable reference. I can't even begin to say how inappropriate that is on so many different levels. An American court has as much legitimacy on science issues as a religious text or a comic book: none whatsoever. Or do you suggest we use quotes from the Scopes trial to define evolution?

In addition, none of the quotes you provide there are a definition of IC, which is what the article needs to start with and which is what we are discussing here. I'm not arguing against the contents of the article, but the first sentence and the inappropriate usage of "discredited" there. --Denoir 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In all cases, we need to state only what we can source. A legal case is not a sufficient source to state that a theory "is discredited"; it is only a sufficient source to state that the theory "has been described as 'discredited' by a legal ruling", or similar. To most readers, these will have the same impact; but in one case, we are stating that Wikipedia believes something, in the other case, we are saying exactly what an external source says. To any but the most credulous reader, it shold have more impact to specifically state what is stated by what source, rather than take it on the non-existent authority of Wikipedia with general references. TSP 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea that we can only use phrases like 'has been described as' is not entirely correct. If it applied then absolutely any statement anywhere would carry that disclaimer. It is the same style of argument that suggests that scientific statements should be prefixed by 'it is thought' or 'some believe'. Scientists are fallible, so there is always the possibility that stating 'x is so' will later turn out to be incorrect. That does not mean we need to double the length of every article with this sort of padding. If a solid respectable source states something we can cite it and use it to support the statement without disclaimer. FM is correct in saying we should cite the ruling. Note that in this case IC is presented by its proponents as scientific - therefore it is entirely appropriate to identify what the scientific consensus on the subject is - indeed this is crucial to beginning to understand the concept. The Dover ruling summarises that consensus. If it's tremendously important we could simply cite the position of leading scientific organisations on the subject, rather than the ruling, but this is simply a roundabout way of ending up at the same place. --Davril2020 02:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TSP and Denoir. "Discredited" should *in particular* not be used in the opening sentence of the article. And I don't think that the Dover ruling is good enough evidence to call the theory discredited in any case. (Like TSP and Denoir, I am in the awkward position of arguing "in favor" of a theory that I think is unscientific at best.) Phiwum 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tricky. Well, we differ in opinion, but noone's being irrational, so perhaps the sensible thing is to just put out a Request for comment and agree to be bound by the decision? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that we can't reach consensus internally then sure, I see no problem in an RfC. We do need to make it clear in the RfC that nobody is claiming that IC has any scientific support or value. In addition we need to be clear on what we disagree on. From the comments above there seem to be two separate questions

--

1. If the opening sentence should contain normative terms such as "discredited" or if it should be a plain definition of the IC hypothesis without any comments on what the scientific community (or anybody else) thinks of it. (All are in agreement that it should be clearly stated in the article that IC is rejected by the scientific community - there is no disagreement there)

2. If the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction over the global scientific community ;-) Or put differently: If the legal findings of the Dover trial are suitable as the primary reference for defining the scientific consensus on the issue. (As opposed to using the statements of prominent scientists and peer-reviewed, published articles and books as primary references. This may of course include statements that scientists made at the Dover trial.)

--

Would that be a correct description of the difference in opinion? --Denoir 04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right, though 2. is a little snarky. On the point of 2, this might have relevance. I do think an RfC might help - we seem about equally split, and fairly sharply divided - somewhat awkward when you're trying to reach consensus. Luckily, we're all sensible, which is a big help. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, are we equally divided? If I'm in the minority, I really should concede gracefully. Perhaps a quick poll first? Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the consensus reached on articles like Pseudoscience and Astrology was that "discredited" or "unscientific", etc. are not of the essence of the topic, they are properties about the topic. That a theory is scientifically discredited is important to the article, but the purpose of the first sentence is to state what it is, not evaluations about it, which cannot come until after it is described. A stark example is that of astrology, where it was a major, not discredited set of beliefs before the modern age; astrology did not itself change, views and acceptance of it did. The description in the first paragraph of that article is accurate regardless of the age in which it is read, or who reads it, because it describes what astrology is. —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well put, that's exactly the way I see it. --Denoir 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the recent past, IC has been described as

1. a discredited idea
2. a controversial idea
3. Michael Behe's idea

I believe that it's pretty clear that no. 3 isn't meaningful - while Behe was the major proponent, it has deeper intellectual roots, and it has had other proponents. The second option is questionable - IC isn't controversial from a scientific perspective - there is no scientific controversy around IC, it's been rejected. The third option is "discredited". This is true. As for sourcing - it isn't a matter of giving a court authority on this matter. Rather, it's a matter of trusting Jones to summarise the information presented to him in a reasonable fashion. Jones is also an impartial source. His lack of an agenda here makes his summary credible. Other sources are possible, but there is nothing wrong with using Jones's ruling as a source. Guettarda 06:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since no comments have been added for a while and there are clearly two factions, so I suggest we go ahead with a vote or an RfC. --Denoir 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No need. It should be removed. Put up the arguments for discrediting it in the article (which they're already there) and let the reader see that it is discredited (or not). Doesn't belong in the opening. Yes, I read the above arguments. --*Spark* 15:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. The Dover ruling clearly states: "We therefore find 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."[10] We have a district level federal court ruling saying Behe's notion is refuted and widely rejected; it's tough to get anymore discredited than that. Clearly "discredited" is accurate and properly sourced. FeloniousMonk 19:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No. There are several fallacies in your statement. First of all if it has been discredited or not has nothing to do with the definition of the hypothesis. The "discredited" property is not part of the definition of IC. When Behe starts a speech about it, he is not going to say "Let me tell you a bit about the discredited IC hypothesis..". A scientist refuting an alleged example of IC won't have "discredited" in the definition either. It may be discredited in the eyes of the scientific community (although it was never taken seriously in the first place), but that is just one attribute of it and not intrinsic.

Second, an American court hardly has jurisdiction over the global scientific community. What it can say is that in the opinion of the American legal system IC is not a valid scientific argument (for teaching ID). Or do you suggest we also suggest we take into account what 'modern' interpretations of Sharia law have to say about the theory of evolution?

Finally, what does "discredited" mean anyway? It was never accepted by the scientific community. It hasn't been generally disproved as it is not a falsifiable theory - it just vaguely postulates the existence of irreducibly complex biological organisms. The various examples that IC proponents have given have been shot down, but the hypothesis as a whole hasn't and can't be. What we can say is that it is completely unsupported by data, that their reasoning pointless and that it is extremely questionable from a philosophical point of view.

You may say that cold fusion was discredited, but this did not have any standing in the scientific community to begin with. The only reason why it was brought up was because of religious people pushing their ID agenda - and they have political backing. IC is pseudoscience that has been politically inflated. The proponents of ID certainly don't think it is discredited as they are quite immune to real scientific arguments. So how is IC discredited? It implies some form of change - that it once upon a time was considered as a valid theory, but then it was discredited. That's not the case. The scientific community considered it to be pseudoscience and still think that and the ID bunch haven't changed their mind either. --Denoir 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV Giving equal validity tells us that "the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views" and WP:NPOV Pseudoscience says "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." And since as you acknowlege (along with the Dover ruling) none of the scientific community accepts IC and since the Dover ruling already says "Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large" and nearly every professional scientific body has rejected ID and its constituent arguments, of which IC is the most notable, I'd say it is it is very safe to say IC is discredited. The point on which this turns is not that IC is discredited soley because the Dover ruling says it is but that the Dover ruling merely affirms previously existing verifiable facts (as you noted). FeloniousMonk 06:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be fine, but the difference is describing the principle, fundamental essence of the thing as "discredited"; that's not a fundamental essence of anything. The reader finds it is "discredited" before even knowing what it is. —Centrx→talk • 07:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That the concept is discredited can be described in the article. It shouldn't be in the opening. As stated before, see Flat Earth for a parallel. If taken to RfC we will see the same result. Monk, how about letting this one go? It'll still be covered in the article. --*Spark* 12:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, the issue is what is the most accurate wording for the lead. Of the three that have been used recently, this is the most accurate. That doesn't mean we have to stick with it, but it does mean that we should replace it with more accurate wording. Any suggestions? Guettarda 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

FM: Equal validity??? Eh, equal validity would be if in the article support for and arguments against the hypothesis were presented as equal. Anyway, this is getting fairly pointless - you have not addressed a single objection to the inclusion of discredited in the first sentence. I suggest we do the RfC - the outcome is pretty obvious as this article does not live in a vacuum and for just about every other article on a pseudo-scientific topic the decision has been made to exclude such attributes from the definition. There is nothing special about this one and it should follow the same format and rules as the rest. --Denoir 07:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that "discredited" is an intrinsic part of IC. IC has been proposed as proof of ID. However, it can never be a test of design, only of evoluion. It's worth contrasting it with Dembski's ideas - while SC is flawed, it still attempts to search for design. It's conceivable that one could correct the flaws in Dembski's work. IC, on the other hand, can never be corrected. In the best case scenario it can only say that present understanding of evolution is incomplete, it can never be evidence for design. In addition, it's impossible to test for IC. Behe and Minnich admitted these flaws in the Kitzmiller case.

The Kitzmiller case is fundamental here because Behe and Minnich were under oath. Scientific journals can publish critiques, but they can't force proponents of an idea to admit the obvious flaws. Court cases can. Jones' ruling summarises what was presented in the case. Thus, it's an important source of the fact that IC is "discredited". Guettarda 12:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Something can't be discredited before it has been defined. It would be circular logic otherwise. Anyway, I have added an RfC. --Denoir 15:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

IC hasn't been defined? What are you talking about? Guettarda 15:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is very elementary logic, not rocket science. If your definition of IC contains that it is discredited then any further discussion about if it is discredited or not would be meaningless as it was already defined as discredited. If it was discredited per definition it wouldn't have been borught up in court or discussed in length in this article. The IC hypothesis was rejected by the scientific community after looking at the IC hypothesis - the rejection was not included in the hypothesis --Denoir 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just an on looker here, noticed the jury is still out of this subject. First I'll share my first impression of the article. The first sentence does completely throw off the article. It seemed as if it was an article about the discrediting of IC rather than IC and all the information about it. This kinda gave me the outward impression of an opinion or a "spun" article. I think the article would be more receptive to people who don't even know what IC was if they could read the description then learn of its history. I don't know about you but I like something to be described before I accept any opinions or facts concerning it. This is just my outside observation here.

Secondly and I believe to be more importantly, what would the IC article have looked like prior to the Dover case? Denoir and others are right the article should conform like any other with a description followed by more information. Let's not assume people need to be told up front about the current scientific position on something they may know absolutely about, that comes off as suggestive. --71.192.88.79 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Responses to RfC

Remove "discredited". Reasons:

1. "Discredited" should not be part of the opening sentence. It does is not define irreducible complexity, nor does it describe it. See wikipedia:Define and describe.

The define and describe rule states that:

"If its subject is amenable to definition, an article should give a concise, conceptually sound definition in its opening sentence and then proceed with a description. "

1. The attribute "discredited" leads to an Over-narrow definition. A system can be irreducibly complex even if this property is not discredited.
2. It is not irreducible complexity itself that is discredited by some people, but rather the attribution of this property to living systems. The disambiguation note at the top of the paragraph does not remedy this. In fact, the whole article should be remaned to Irreducible complexity of living systems.  Andreas  ^(T) 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"It is not irreducible complexity itself that is discredited by some people, but rather the attribution of this property to living systems"

This article is about IC in the context of intelligent design. It's clearly explained. Maybe you should read the text at the top of the article:

This article covers irreducible complexity as used by those who argue for intelligent design. For information on irreducible complexity as used in Systems Theory, see Emergence.

Guettarda 15:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

""Discredited" should not be part of the opening sentence. It does is not define irreducible complexity, nor does it describe it."

How not? You don't need to quote the entire page you linked to - how about explaining how it applies to this issue?

"The attribute "discredited" leads to an Over-narrow definition." A system can be irreducibly complex even if this property is not discredited."

How is this an "over-narrow definition"?

"A system can be irreducibly complex even if this property is not discredited."

I have no idea what you mean here. What systems are irreducibly complex? Apart from that, the sentence makes no sense overall. Guettarda 16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that the concept is advocated as scientific, I believe it is relevent to identify that it has been discredited by scientists early on. --Davril2020 16:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disagrees that it should be said early on that the concept has been rejected by the scientific community. However, don't you think that the article should describe what the concept is, before saying that it is rejected? --Denoir 16:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If it did not puport to be scientific that would be acceptable. However since it claims to be scientific the description is either going to have to state it is presented as a scientific argument without comment, or state that the argument is discredited. --Davril2020 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

IC isn't falsifiable and thus by some schools of philosophy of science isn't considered to be a scientific theory to being with. Either way, it is expressed in such a way that it cannot be disproven. All that can be said is that it is unsupported by all the data that we have. Ultimately it doesn't matter: the hypothesis was rejected after it was presented - rejection isn't included in the hypothesis. This article is on the hypothesis and the first sentence should be the definition of the hypothesis. This is a pattern that has been follwed for all other articles on pseudoscience and it is difficult to see why this one should be an exception. --Denoir 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about what schools of philosophy of science accept unfalsifiable "theories" (forgive my ignorance, but this seems rather odd to me). It's incorrect to say that "IC is unsupported by the data we have now" - as a scientific hypothesis (falsifiable or unfalsifiable, if such a thing exists) IC is intrinsically unable do what it purports to do, which is to show evidence of design. IC can only address questions about evolution, not about design. Since it cannot do this, it is fundamentally and fatally flawed...and has been discredited (quite effectively, by the admissions made by ID proponents at the Kitzmiller trial). Guettarda 18:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The primary school of thought against Popper's falsifiability criteria is the one of Thomas Khun, which is mainstream if not predominant. You can read more about it in the criticism section of the article on falsifiability. I don't agree with them, but that is besides the point. As for IC not being able to support ID, that is undeniably true, but again that's not the definition of IC - it is the purpose of it. What it is not capable of doing and how flawed it is is independent of the definition of it. You need to define what 'it is before you say that it is wrong. --Denoir 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • This is a mischaracterisation of the dispute. Three descriptors have been proposed - "controversial" (which is inaccurate, since there is no scientific controversy, simply dismissal), "Behe's theory" (which misses the broader context) and "discredited" (which is accurate, but may not be the best choice of words). 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[This comment by User:Guettarda was moved here from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology  Andreas  ^(T) 16:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)]

Um, if you look at the comments above, you will see that nobody else but Guettarda thinks that the dispute is about the choice of descriptor. --Denoir 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really? The what was the edit war about? Or is this an esoteric discussion unrelated to the article? Guettarda 18:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a completely unrelated discussion to the edit wars. I brought up the removal of the "discredited" and wasn't aware of any edit war - and there have been no edits related to this discussion. We're discussing if "discredited" should be kept in the first sentence and as a secondary debate if the conclusions of the Dover trial can be used to say what the scientific community thinks about IC. Nothing more and nothing less. --Denoir 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, what edit wars? I don't see any edit warring. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to Rtc's edit war, in which he kept replacing "discredited" with "Behe's". Since Denoir has failed to come up with an alternative, but wants "discredited" expunged from the article, it's fair to say that he is arguing in favour of Rtc's version. Guettarda 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I don't know how to put this in more simple terms: no, that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the removal of "discredited" not about replacing it with something else. Get it? --Denoir 21:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Short of deleting the article, you can't remove something and replace it with nothing. You have to replace it with something. There is a discussion about the wording of the lead. Words convey meaning. You can't remove a word without changing the meaning of the sentance. If you removal factual information from the lead, you change its meaning. Saying "this word shouldn't be here" is not enough. You can't change the sentance into a less accurate statement. That degrades article quality and lowers article quality. I have no problem with replacing the current lead with a more accurate one (I have said so over and over). I do have a problem with your campaign to expunge uncomplimentary material from the lead. That's whitewashing and violates NPOV. Guettarda 22:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. So if I after "discredited" add "pink" so it says "the discredited pink argument", then you wouldn't remove "pink" but replace with a more accurate word... Please, get real. And read these two threads - you are the only one arguing for replacing "discredited" with another word. All the others here are debating if we should keep "discredited" or remove it. --Denoir 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For any RFC respondents formulating opinions, they will need to take into account the following source which is already provided in the article: "We therefore find 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. "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Any line of reasoning that ignores or dismisses this fact will not fly. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that if we go by the Dover trial, we certainly shouldn't include the "discredited" part. The trial concluded that ID (including IC) is not science and hence shouldn't be taught as science. Since it has been declared that it is not a scientific hypothesis then what the scientific community has to say about it is fairly irrelevant. It is like saying that Winnie the Pooh has been discredited because the scientific community doesn't support the idea of talking bears. The argument that Behe & Co think that it is a scientific theory doesn't mean much or change the nature of it. Hence if we accept the Dover ruling that IC is not a scientific hypothesis then we cannot say that IC is a false or discredited scientific hypothesis. --Denoir 19:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What we are defining is a discredited argument. I fail to see the issue. In the article for R'lyeh, the opening sentence is "R'lyeh is a fictional city ..." not "R'lyeh is a city blah blah blah. Oh, and its fictional. " KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the city was fictional per definition - the author never claimed it to be real. In the case of IC, the proponents claimed that it was real and then the hypothesis was discredited. If you wish to compare to other articles, you should check out similar discredited stuff such as Intelligent design, Astrology, Homeopathy etc --Denoir 19:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and those articles if anything need more work to make them NPOV - especially astrology. The bottom line is that the argument is discredited both in the scientific and legal communities - to not make tha clear would lead to serious POV/undue weight issues. JoshuaZ 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We are making it perfectly clear in the article. The article should however start with a definition. The definition of IC does not it include that it has been rejected - otherwise every subsequent rejection of it will be pointless. The argument has been discredited both both in the scientific and legal communities. The opening sentence should state what that argument is. --Denoir 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you come to the conclusion that "subsequent rejection of it is pointless"? The lead is meant to summarise the article as a whole. See WP:LEAD. Information in the lead section is going to be repeated and developed throughout the article. What do you have against accurately characterising the subject in the lead? Guettarda 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead section is not the same as the opening sentence. The fact that irreducable complexity is refuted as an argument by the scientific community should be mentioned in the lead section, but not in the opening sentence.  Andreas  ^(T) 21:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How's this for a rewrite. Refs are not active, same as what's on main page:

--*Spark* 22:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It could use a bit of a copy edit - the first word or two of sentences tend to repeat things from the previous sentence, e.g. "The idea is used" - I prefer to combine directly related sentences like that.

It could use a smoother working in of the systems theory concepts, but.... Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Aren't irreducibly complex systems by definition..um..irreducibly complex - i.e they cannot be reduced to a simpler system? If a system has evolved from a simpler system, it can't be irreducibly complex. Or am I missing something? Anyway, I'm ok with both versions of the rewrite - I somewhat prefer spark's version in terms of style, but I'm ok either way. --Denoir 02:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The game of "Jenga".

Someone should add in the article that the game of "Jenga" provides a perfect example of how irreducible complex systems can form via additions,deletions and alterations of prior genetic material. In the game of Jenga if logs are taken out and put elsewhere then you reach a point where if any single log is removed then it would destroy the tower.Wikidudeman 09:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely the logs on top can always be safely removed. I guess that's against the rules?

Phiwum 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I do believe it's against the rules.Wikidudeman 17:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a notable source that presents this example, it's Original Research. It doesn't obviously appear to be a very good illustration of evolution of irreducibly complex structures - a Jenga tower could almost always be rebuilt step by step from the ground up, and therefore is not irreducibly complex. Also, a Jenga tower serves no purpose, so doesn't illustrate the crucial aspect that evolutionary steps need to be beneficial in order to emerge by natural selection; and it is built by conscious effort of the players, so doesn't illustrate the evolution aspect either. TSP 17:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree about your points concerning original research, but your other points aren't supported. Where does Behe et al claim that irreducible complexity requires that a given process can't be repeated? How do you get that a Jenga tower serves no purpose (that sounds like original research of its own). While a Jenga tower is built by conscious effort, it is not planned ahead of time. Where does being built by conscious effort, but not being planned either, get excluded from evolution in a system? After all, the world economic system also evolved and was done so by conscious effort.-Psychohistorian 18:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "evolution"; I said "natural selection". As I understand it, Behe's arguments about irreducibly complex structures relate to the evolution of biological structures through natural selection ("An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution" [11]). The article could discuss irreducibly complex structures developed through conscious effort, but they'd seem to me to have at least reduced relevance to the original argument - an argument that irreducibly complex structures could evolve, but only if guided by conscious effort, would be almost as much of a "powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution". Purpose is also at the heart of the definition - "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system 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". But what is the function of a Jenga tower? If you remove the top block, what function is it that it no longer performs; what function is it that it performs in its final state, but would not at any previous time if you were to build it one block at a time from the bottom? Again, this seems to me to be a crucial element of Behe's definition of irreducible complexity, which makes me doubt the relevance of the jenga example if it has no such function.

It doesn't make the example utterly irrelevant, and it could plausibly be used to illustrate some limited aspects of the irreducible complexity debate, but does mean that it has substantial differences from the meaning attached to the term by its proponents, which seem to me to make it a poor example - quite apart from it being original research. (Obviously, these objections are also original research - normally the only appropriate criticism of an included argument would be its sources, but as there are none obviously we can't consider them.) TSP 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is relevent or necessary, especially considering all the facts and sources. It would only serve to confuse or mislead. IC and Jenga are apples and oranges in that the idea of IC does not have any imposed rules, where as Jenga does. Jenga's tower doesn't serve any function (that I know of) where are the examples used in IC do have function. Maybe I'm wrong about the comparison, but either way it's completely unnecessary. --71.192.88.79 12:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To Ec5618

I've already brought this up on your talk page about our reverting, but I see you have now made a third revert. I'm not going to revert it again, but could you please change it back yourself to how the page was before you made your third revert. Mathmo ^Talk 13:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Kindly, I will leave the article to reflect verifiable truth. Behe has had to admit that the argument of irreducible complexity, as it currently stands, does not work as either an argument in favour of intelligent design, nor as an argument against evolution. As such, it is not a valid argument, and, if it were more generally formulated, might even be a logical fallacy. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial concluded, among other things, 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. Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design".

I'm sorry, but there is no reason to remove the word 'discredited' from the article. -- Ec5618 13:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a reason, WP:3RR#I.27ve_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F. Restore it back to how it was before you reverted it and don't worry about it, if your viewpoint that your article really is a NPOV of how things are then somebody else should do the reverting for you in no time at all. Mathmo ^Talk 14:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for other editors is hardly necessary, when arguments trump numbers. The word 'discredited' appears for a number of good reasons, as I have tried to explain to you. Indeed, as I mentioned, Behe has had to admit that the argument of irreducible complexity, as it currently stands, does not work as either an argument in favour of intelligent design, nor as an argument against evolution.

I'm sorry, but the fact that the argument has been discredited is verifiable, and as such, there is no need to remove that information. Indeed, one of the most relevant pieces of information on this subject is that even its 'creator' has had to admit that it falls apart when scrutinised.

I have not violated 3RR. And please, let's keep this discussion confined to a single talk page. Ec5618 14:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"is hardly necessary"?? Are you telling me you can ignore official policy? Not so, this is not a good enough reason for you to be going against it. Neither do you show any signs of remorse and that you wouldn't go ahead and break WP:3RR again in the future just as easily. Mathmo ^Talk 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read policy, as you seem to misunderstand it. In any case, it might be a good idea to discuss the article, as opposed to percieved slights. -- Ec5618 14:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you were right as I've said before already about 3RR. Anyway... getting back to the article (got side tracked for moment thinking there was a bigger issues at stake of official policy being broken. But no, I was wrong! It does happen from time to time....). Not fully convinced yet that Behe himself doesn't believe in Irreducible Complexity at all, but you have raised enough doubt I'll look into it some more when I get up. Mathmo ^Talk 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The use of "discredited" to refer to the theory of IC is blatantly POV and inappropriate in this context. Your repeated reverts have turned this page, just as so many on the Wikipedia have been, into a war automatically won by the person who has less to do.

Similarly, it seems you came across this article, and decided to remove sourced content without having read the existing discussion. If you read the discussion, then you'll find that there are good reasons for removing the word, and good reasons for keeping it.

My views are roughly this: This concept has been discredited. Its creator has had to concede that fact. The argument is only an argument against evolution if we ignore the effects of natural selection. This is verifiably true, and this was concluded in the court case. Expert testimony, not least of which from Michael Behe, has yielded that the argument, as it currently stands, does not deal with the theory of evolution, but rather with a concept as far removed from evolution as Lamarckism. A concept of evolution that does not allow for natural selection is little more than the old concept of generatio spontanea, the concept that fully formed mice might form out of grain.

The word 'discredited' is justified. How has irriducible complexity not been falsified? All supposed examples of IC, supposed evidence for this concept and the supposedly the foundations of the concept, have been shown to be false. -- Ec5618 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Its creator has had to concede that fact." Presumably editorial decisions in the Wikipedia should not be determined by fallacious arguments, and you commit the argument fallacy of appealing to an expert here. If Michael Behe tomorrow came out and said that all of intelligent design is bullcrap, that is still wholly irrelevant to the question of whether it actually is bullcrap or not. For you to continue to cite this alleged fact, that Behe has repudiated the theory, shows that you are less concerned with making valid arguments than with winning them. That's unfortunate, for you and everyone who has to read your edits. "This is verifiably true, and this was concluded in the court case. Expert testimony, not least of which from Michael Behe, has yielded that the argument, as it currently stands, does not deal with the theory of evolution, but rather with a concept as far removed from evolution as Lamarckism." Expert testimony in a court case has no relevance here either. A judge in a court cannot "discredit" a scientific theory. The point is this: you take your view of the evidence and decide that the theory has been discredited. I've taken my view of the evidence and reached a contrary conclusion, and, as you concede above, a reasonable one ("good reasons for removing the word..."). Therefore, for you to insist upon including the word "discredited," though conceding that there are good arguments that the theory has not been discredited, is unambiguously POV and inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.39.209 (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

You respond to one of my arguments as though it was my only one, and then insult me by stating that you feel I am being dishonest. Irreducible complexity has been discredited. By whom is not the point, though it is telling. Feel free to respond to the entirety of my post. If you want to be extra thorough, you might consider finding a way for irreducible complexity to be possible in a world in which parts of a machine can be repurposed, while IC depends on the assumption that they cannot. -- Ec5618 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably you should not be making fallacious arguments in support of your editorial decision. To do so is to be intellectually dishonest. You say: "Irreducible complexity has been discredited. By whom is not the point, though it is telling." You can't have it both ways buddy. Either Behe's opinion is entitled to extra weight, or it isn't. Get your argument straight on that point and we'll talk about the rest of your claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.39.209 (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

So you will not respond to my argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.39.209 (talk • contribs)

I have been advised not to converse with trolls. Apparently, you come off as such. In any case, unless you can convince a majority of editors of your point of view, you shouldn't edit the article. -- Ec5618 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor am I a troll. You have notably refused to engage in a rational argument on my points. You instead claim that because the original propounder of a theory has allegedly refuted it, it is now invalid. This is nonsense, as any rational person would see.

I still await something approaching a rational response regarding how a theory can be "discredited" based on testimony in court. Oh, by the way, there is nothing in the Kitzmiller decision that would even justify the claim that Behe himself now rejects the theory. So try again.65.188.39.209 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Last stable version?

Rossami reverted my edit to what she claims is the "last stable version", took a look back through the recent history and I saw that I'm not the only one who has been removing discredited from it's NPOV. For that matter has there ever been a stable version? Doubt it. Mathmo ^Talk 03:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First, please don't make incorrect assumptions about gender. Second, while this has been a debated point, the specific use of "discredited" in the header was the version immediately prior to this latest edit war. According to our precedents and practices, that makes it the "last stable version" for the purposes this debate. I am neutral on this particular style question but want you both to solve it through discussion and weight of argument here on the Talk page, not through continued (or resumed) edit-warring. Rossami (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Discredited" came from a contested edit added on Dec. 2. There seems to have been some acceptance on the talk page for the following version by Adam_Cuerden:

Irreducible complexity is an argument for the intelligent design of life that claims certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors. It has been rejected by...

Instead of the article itself making some ultimate judgement about the validity of IC, this version simply states that most of the scientific community rejects it. HKT^Talk 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks HKT, you seem to have written well the points I was making. Namely this the addition of "discredited" goes back a lot further than Rossami, and thus should be reverted to a far early version than the one s/he did. Also you made the point how article shouldn't make an "ultimate judgement about the validity of IC". Lastly I'm sorry about the gender if I made a mistake, thought I knew a girl called "Rossami". Must have just been something similar. Mathmo ^Talk 16:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. We have a notable, definitive and reliable source, the Dover ruling, saying that "the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's"[12] and "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."[13] As long as the Dover ruling stands and is not contradicted by another equally weighty source then the article will continue to reflect IC's current status. FeloniousMonk 18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Kitzmiller case (referred to as "the Dover Ruling") is not a reliable source in this context. Kitzmiller is a court case presided over by a judge who has no scientific training and is not able to make "reliable" decisions about whether a certain theory is or is not creditable or scientific. Note also that the Kitzmiller case makes absolutely no claims about the ultimate validity of the intelligent design hypothesis, it only decides, for the purposes of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, that intelligent design is not to be taught in science classes in Dover. There is a stark difference, that you fail to understand, between a theory being "discredited" and it being "unscientific." Something can be unscientific without being discredited or even discreditable. If intelligent design is actually religion, then it certainly falls in that category. But I object in the strongest terms possible to using court cases about the U.S. Constitution as "reliable" on questions of science. If you don't agree, I suggest you go do a little reseach and see what some of our judges think science is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.39.209 (talk • contribs)

While you have a point that courts are not invariably reliable sources on questions of science, I strongly urge you to review what this particular court did when reaching this particular finding rather than making blanket statements about all judges. It is incorrect to say that this judge had "no scientific training" - based on the available evidence, he is quite well versed in the Scientific Method and succinctly summarized the relevant scientific findings. Rossami (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read Kitzmiller several times. Judge Jones has no scientific training. Nor did I make a blanket statement about "all judges"; I specifically said "some judges," because some judges do in fact get science quite wrong. Because of this, court cases are not a repository of valid science and are inappropriately used to bolster scientific claims (i.e., that X is a discredited theory). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.39.209 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

And if you want to accuse me of "wiki-lawyering," fine. If reasoned argument constitutes "wiki-lawyering," then I plead guilty. I note with interest that you've refused to respond to my point that I did not make a blanket statement about "all judges." I guess being on the Wikipedia means never having to say you're wrong.65.188.39.209 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The verdict of a court case is not a reliable source vis-a-vis scientific reality. If a Christian fundamentalist judge somewhere now rules that IC is indeed scientific, does that mean that IC is now "recredited"? A position is ultimately discredited when all elements within the scientific community agree that the position has been disproved. That is plainly not the case, regardless of whether a judge thinks that a given position is unscientific. HKT^Talk 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that Jones' ruling discredited IC - rather, his ruling summarised the testimony by experts (on both sides). That IC is discredited is no surprise - under oath, even Behe admitted the flaws with it. The requirement that "all elements agree" is a bit extreme, although given that even Behe agrees, I don't see how anyone can seriously argue otherwise. Guettarda 04:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please produce Behe's confession that the argument from IC is "discredited", if you can find it. Perhaps you refer to the following:

In 2001, Michael Behe wrote: "[T]here is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work." Behe specifically explained that the "current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system", but the "difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place". In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe testified under oath that he "did not judge [the asymmetry] serious enough to [have revised the book] yet." [16]

Behe additionally testified that the presence of irreducible complexity in organisms would not rule out the involvement of evolutionary mechanisms in the development of organic life. He further testified that he knew of no earlier "peer reviewed articles in scientific journals discussing the intelligent design of the blood clotting cascade," but that there were "probably a large number of peer reviewed articles in science journals that demonstrate that the blood clotting system is indeed a purposeful arrangement of parts of great complexity and sophistication." [17]

How does Behe testifying under oath that he estimates that there are a "large number" of journal article's indicating a "purposeful arrangement of parts" mean that he considers IC "discredited"? Further, it is not extreme to require all elements within the scientific community to agree that an argument is scientifically discredited for Wikipedia to make that statement. A fortiori Wikipedia shouldn't make such a judgment where many (albeit a minority) w/in the scientific community don't consider the argument discredited. Furthermore, while Jones' summary may indicate that Behe's argument "has been rejected by the scientific community at large," his opinion that peer-reviewed articles have definitively "refuted" the IC argument is simply a matter of him agreeing with those articles. The only authority that he has in that regard is legal authority, so his opinion, right or wrong, applies w/in the legal sphere. He has no scientific authority to rule on whether an argument is refuted in the face of scientific opinions (some peer-reviewed) to the contrary. HKT^Talk 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect to readability, the above quote

Irreducible complexity is an argument for the intelligent design of life that claims certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors. It has been rejected by...

seems to be a very fair introduction which makes a clear overview of what ID is. The current one is heavily weighted for an introduction and is snarled with PoV. Candy 00:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I too would be much happier with this. "Is a discredited theory" seems to me to be imprecise, to push a POV, and not to meet Wikipedia's normal standards of sourcing statements. "This theory has been rejected by...." seems to me to have much more integrity. Most educated readers will read "has been rejected by mainstream science" to have just as much force as "is discredited"; we don't need to present our view as the only possible one just because we think that only the people who agree with it are worth listening to. Wikipedia's content policies are based on the principle of saying only what we can source from elsewhere, rather than asserting it on our own authority (so "is described by (x) as (y)", not "is (y)"). The Neutral Point of View policy says: "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." The current introduction doesn't seem to adhere to this. TSP 02:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for someone to show something that indicates that Michael Behe has "discredited" his own theory. Admitting a theory has defects has never "discredit" it; Newtonian mechanics, crystal field theory, even gravitation all have some defects but are not considered to be "discredited." I think the burden of proof here lies squarely on those claiming Behe has refuted the theory, and the burden of proof has not been met. 65.188.39.209 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the "discredited" quote has to go. In fact, it disrupts the entire intro paragraph, which doesn't have a clear definition as a result. I also agree that there is basically zero reason to suggest, as people have in this forum, that Behe himself would ever agree that its discredited -- the quotes to date are from other people. What they believe is largely besides the point. Lets put this in perspective, the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations doesn't include "discredited" in the intro, yet I would argue that by any definition is is considerable more discredited that IC, and was supported by a much smaller group of people even at its height. I am going to edit, both to remove the wording as well as improve the para. Maury 22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Discredited theories: A survey

A quick survey to see what other discredited theories use to say so. Quotes are from the start of the lead, except where the mention comes significantly later, in which case I prefixed with "..."

Recapitulation theory: Mentioned in second sentence of lead: The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, is a theory in biology which attempts to explain apparent similarities between humans and other animals. First espoused in 1866 by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, the theory has been discredited in its absolute form ("strong recapitulation"), although recognized as being perhaps partly fruitful.

Geocentric model: Paragraph Four: ...The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age; from the late 16th century onward it was gradually replaced by the heliocentric model of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. Today, geocentric cosmology survives in the work of some creationist fundamentalist Protestant elements of Christianity, as well as literary treatments within alternate history science fiction.

Lamarckism: First sentence: Lamarckism or Lamarckian evolution is a theory put forward by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, based on heritability of acquired characteristics, the once widely accepted but now superseded idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring.

Phlogiston theory: First sentence: The phlogiston theory is an obsolete scientific theory of combustion. It was developed by J. J. Becher late in the 17th century and was extended and popularized by Georg Ernst Stahl, who (correctly, but for the wrong reasons) declared the rusting of metal to be a combustion process.

Spontaneous generation: N/A (redirects to, of all the awful places, Abiogenesis!)

Alchemy: Not really mentioned.

Certainly, it's not unheard of elsewhere to say a theory is discredited/no longer in use. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I must confess I'm a little confused about some of these examples. Lamarck's theory is probably misnamed. It's actually more of a hypothesis. There was no experimental or accurate observational evidence for it - although refer to epigenetics for some interest.

The Geocentric model was not created using the scientific method. It wasn't a theory. It was a belief system created through religious dogma and superstition perpetuated by extreme predjudice by the Roman Catholic church.

Spontaneous generation (in the sense of flies generating from rotten meat and mice from grain) was a superstition/folklore based on inaccurate observation. The scientific method put that to rest. It wasn't a theory!

Recapitulation is interesting. Parts of it do exist in a modified form as evidence of common ancestry.

Phlogiston. Well there is now a new theory of combustion. Besides, the scientific method put that to rest.

It's probably better to state that most theories die because the experimental data was fixed and were not reproducible or they get modifed (Newton --> Einstein which by the way didn't stop NASA using Newtonian mechanics to get to the moon and back) or the original observations were flawed. Also watch out with the word theory. What's more interesting are the theories that should have died or been modified but didn't (mainly because some famous scientist got their ego stuck in front of it ref: Einstein, Hawking) Candy 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I must be missing something. What does this mean?

What's more interesting are the theories that should have died or been modified but didn't (mainly because some famous scientist got their ego stuck in front of it ref: Einstein, Hawking)--Filll 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

hehe. Both einstein and Hawking stuck doggedly to ideas because they had too much ego and wanted them to "be right". Because of the stature of both scientists when they "announced" their beliefs dissent was effectively sidelined and even ridiculed by other scientists. The result being a "dead-end" that everyone was doggedly persuing. I'm casting no mud here, it's just the nature of human beings. Incidentally, Hawking relatively recently changed his ideas on the "information paradox" which I have to say was a mighty big thing for him to do. Candy 15:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Science article disproving reasoning of ID irreducible complexity

The rationale of a lock and key pairs in nature and irreducible complexity are addressed demonstrating the weakness of this notion. Science 7 April 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 61 - 63 EVOLUTION:Reducible ComplexityChristoph Adami*, Science 7 April 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 97 - 101 Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation Jamie T. Bridgham, Sean M. Carroll, Joseph W. Thornton* ristoph Adami* GetAgrippa 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Behe's alleged denial of any literature on evolution of biochem. systems

FeloniousMonk added the following (a revision to an earlier addition; bolding added here by myself):

Behe's claim that there is no scientific literature on the evolution of biochemical systems has been shown to be false.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA350.html Claim CA350: Professional literature is silent on the subject of the evolution of biochemical systems] TalkOrigins Archive.</ref> The judge in the Dover trial wrote "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity..."<ref>[[s:Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_74_of_139|Ruling,]] [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]], December 2005. Page 74.</ref>

First of all, the fact that the Dover ruling stated that Behe ignored "evidence that refutes his argument" does not mean that he asserted that, as of 1995 when he wrote the book, no literature existed on the evolution of biochemical systems. Secondly, the TalkOrigins source asserts that Behe made a claim that "professional literature is silent on the subject of the evolution of biochemical systems." It cites several pages in Behe's book where he supposedly made that claim: 68, 72, 97, 114-116, 138, 185-186. Relevant quotes from the cited pages follow:

• p. 68: "A quick electronic search of the professional literature shows more than a thousand papers in the past several years that have the word cilia or a similar word in the title.... In the past two decades, however, only two articles even attempted to suggest a model for the evolution of the cilium that takes into account real mechanical considerations."
• p. 72: "The general professional literature on the bacterial flagellum is about as rich as the literature on the cilium.... Yet here again... no scientist has ever published a model to account for the gradual evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine."
• p. 97: "[Russell Doolittle] deserves a lot of credit for being one of the few... who is actually trying to explain how this complex biochemical system [the coagulation cascade] arose."
• pp. 114-116: "Logging on to a computer database of the professional literature in the biomedical sciences allows you to do a quick search for key words in in the titles of literally hundreds of thousands of papers. A search to see what titles have both evolution and vesicle in them comes up completely empty. Slogging through the literature the old-fashioned way turns up a few scattered papers on how gated transport between compartments of a eukaryotic cell might have developed. But all the papers assume that the transport systems came from preexisting bacterial transport systems that already had all the components that modern cells have. This does us no good.... The textbook [Molecular Biology of the Cell] spends 100 pages on the elegant details of gated and vesicular transport.... [T]here is a one-and-a-half-page section entitled 'The Topological Relationship of Membrane-Bounded Organelles Can Be Interpreted in Terms of Their Evolutionary Origins.'... [I]t does not even address the origin of protein transport, either vesicular or gated. Clarithin is not mentioned in this short section... At the end of our literature search, we know no more than when we started."
• p. 138: "There are other papers and books that discuss the evolution of the immune system. [Behe cites five examples of such literature.] Most of them, however, are at the level of cell biology and thus unconcerned with detailed molecular mechanisms, or else they are concerned simply with comparison of DNA or protein sequences. Comparing sequences might be a good way to study relatedness, but the results can't tell us anything about the mechanism that first produced the systems. We can look high or we can look low... but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system."
• pp. 185-186: "Despite comparing sequences and mathematical modeling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be."

Another representative quote from Behe:

• p. 178: "Between 1984 and 1995 PNAS published about twenty thousand papers... [of which] about 400 papers were concerned with molecular evolution.... No papers were published in PNAS that proposed detailed routes by which complex biochemical structures might have developed.... [S]equences upon sequences, but no explanations."

It's pretty clear that Behe did not "claim that there is no scientific literature on the evolution of biochemical systems." He did claim a lack of "proposed detailed routes [in scientific literature] by which complex biochemical structures might have developed." He expressly stated that though there was much literature about the "evolution of biochemical systems," there was a lack of literature proposing detailed mechanisms for the genesis of complex systems through natural selection. HKT^Talk 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion, why don't we use Kizmiller pg. 78:

"Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. (2:31 (Miller)). In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe))."

It's a wonderful illustration, and much more to the point. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like a good suggestion. How about a paragraph that includes sources from the book, testimony, and the ruling? Vaguely like this:

Behe's wrote in his book: "There are... papers and books that discuss the evolution of the immune system. [Behe cites five examples of such literature.] Most of them, however, are at the level of cell biology and thus unconcerned with detailed molecular mechanisms, or else they are concerned simply with comparison of DNA or protein sequences. Comparing sequences might be a good way to study relatedness, but the results can't tell us anything about the mechanism that first produced the systems.... The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system." (p. 138) He added that he expected that future attempts at explaining the origins of the immune system by evolutionary mechanisms would be frustrating and unproductive, comparing such attempts with the efforts of Sisyphus. (p. 139) According to the Kitzmiller ruling, "Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex."[14] These studies, conducted during the six years following the publication of Behe's book, were shown to Behe during his testimony. Behe testified about those studies that "[A]ll these papers that are being used to provide evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution, in particular, the mechanism evolution of natural selection, yet they don't mention random mutation or natural selection in the body of the works." Behe added that the studies "assume a Darwinian framework. They do not demonstrate it."[15] The Kitzmiller ruling found that Behe "was presented with fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'"[16]

Thoughts? HKT^Talk 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The is precisely why we have a policy forbidding original research. The statement is credited to a secondary source, and HKT's attempt to discredit it is based on analysis of a primary source constistutes original research. And in the worst traditions of OR, it s/he has managed to draw the exact opposite conclusion to what is actually said in the book.

The quote from p. 68 (actually HKT is quoting from 67-68) quits just before Behe makes his point. Continuing from where HKT quit, Behe says:

"Worse, the two papers disagree with each other, even about the general rout such an evolution might take. Neither paper discusses crucial quantitative details, or possible problems that would quickly cause a mechanical device such as a cilium or a mousetrap to be useless."

In other words, Behe is saying that neither paper actually addresses the evolution of the cilium. He continues:

"The lack of quantitative detail...makes such a story utterly useless for understanding how a cilium truly might have evolved...[T]he author...didnt intend his paper to be taken to present a realistic model; he was just trying to be provocative."

With regards to the second paper, he says:

"The second paper...is similar in many ways to the first paper...Szathmary attempts to go a little further and actually discusses mechanical difficulties that would have to be overcome in such a scenario. Inevitably, however, his paper (like Cavalier-Smith's) is a simple word-picture that presents an underdeveloped model to the scientific community for further work. It has also failed at provoking such experimental or theoretical work either by the author or by others."

(The last sentance has a delicious irony, since it describes Behe's ideas perfectly).

"[N]either side has filled in any mechanistic details for its models. Without details, discussion is doomed to be both unscientific and fruitless" [emphasis added].

Behe dismisses these papers - he sees them as no more a contribution to the literature on the evolution of biochemical systems than is his book.

HKT's quote from p. 72 is puzzling, because of what he left out.

"The general professional literature on the bacterial flagellum is about as rich as the literature on the cilium.... Yet here again 'the evolutionary literature is totally missing. No scientist has ever published a model to account for the gradual evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine" [bolded section omitted by HKT].

When read with the text that HKT removed, there is no doubt that Behe is saying what the T.O reference says he is saying.

On pp. 96-97, a paragraph before what HKT quoted, Behe says:

"Yet the article [by Doolittle] does not explain to them how clotting might have originated and subsequently evolved; instead it just tells a story. The fact is no one on earth has the vaguest idea how the coagulation cascade came to be" [emphasis in original].

In other words, he is saying that Doolittle's paper does not address the evolution of this biochemical system.

On page 114, a little before the section from which HKT quoted:

"Once again, if we looked at the literature for an explanation of the evolution of vesicular transport, we would be crushingly disappointed. Nothing is there."

And later

"But we can read from one end of the forty-six-page review to the other without encountering an explanation for how wuch a system might have gradually evolved. The topic is off the radar".

On pp. 115-116

"A search of the professional biochemical literature and textbooks shows that no one has ever proposed a detailed route by which such a system could have come to be".

On pp. 185-186:

"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature - in prestigious journals, speciality journals, r books - that describe how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred...the assertion of Darwinian molecular evoution is merely bluster".

In addition, much of what HKT quoted supports the statement, and none of it actually contradicts it. Guettarda 22:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda wrote (text made small by me):

"HKT's quote from p. 72 is puzzling, because of what he left out.

"The general professional literature on the bacterial flagellum is about as rich as the literature on the cilium.... Yet here again 'the evolutionary literature is totally missing. No scientist has ever published a model to account for the gradual evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine" [bolded section omitted by HKT].

When read with the text that HKT removed, there is no doubt that Behe is saying what the T.O reference says he is saying."

Not at all. The "no scientist" sentence is qualifying the previous sentence. The TO claim simply ignores all context and all statements that run contrary to its reinterpretation of Behe's position. HKT^Talk 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I might clarify that the text bolded here wasn't emphasized in Behe's book. HKT^Talk 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, HKT. Quote mining the ID proponents to defend them? That's worse than normal quotemining. The quote on pg. 72 is particularly troublesome; if we are going to work together to make a decent, accurate, NPOV article it would be best if you were honest about what sources said. JoshuaZ 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules (WP:OR, WP:V) are rather more than 'primary source' vs 'secondary source', however. The current statement is credited to a self-published secondary source (the talk.origins website), which are almost always excluded from being considered reliable sources, except when talking about themselves. Behe's book is perfectly fine to cite: it is a published book, which is preferable to a website, but more importantly it is presenting Behe's own views, so even if it was self-published, it would be an acceptable source for talking about Behe's views (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). The talk.origins website is not a satisfactory source for talking about anything other than the views of its authors, except possibly if the author of a particular section has been published elsewhere by reliable third-party sources giving expert opinion on the same subject.

Which isn't particularly to dispute the point, but it does need to be better sourced. Ideally, if this is about Behe's views, a direct quote from Behe's book (like one of those above) rather than a Wikipedia paraphrase of an unacceptable secondary source would be a good place to start. (And, of course, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to include an assertion, not on the editor who wants to remove it.) TSP 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the above quotes should be used for sourcing as well (and someone should put them in as referrences (I'm not going to do so myself since I don't have a copy of the book with me so I don't feel comfortable adding it in)- the TOA reference is a reliable source. The TOA is not "self-published" but has all content reviewed by experts in the relevant fields and has a multitude of awards including being recommended by Scientific American. Furthermore, the matter in question quotes from Mark Isaak's index of creationist claims which has also been published by a major university press [17]. It would be hard to not see this as a reliable source. JoshuaZ 23:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is self-published: as far as I'm aware it has no publisher other than Mark Isaak. It may be award-winning and self-published, which does improve matters. Its own FAQ says: "We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive."

Mark Isaak's book is a different matter; and its existence, published by a university press, does add credibility to the content in the website. (Is the page content also in the book, do we know? If so, citing it from there would be better.) WP:RS does note the possibility of biased published sources, though - this isn't an insult; but Isaak's book is to make a point - it is entitled "The Counter-Creationism Handbook"; its aim is to provide resources for putting forward a particular point of view, not to provide an NPOV examination of a subject. Ideally it should be used and quoted as an example of notable opposition; and Behe's own words used to put forward his points. TSP 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the level of awards for the TOA make it hard to see it as other than reliable, but it isn't that relevant- Isaak's book is a word-for-word copy of the common creationist claims and so it is in there as well. In any event, the matter isn't that difficult since the main issue here seems to be what Behe says and the page 72 quote which HKT so conveniently butchered is more than enough sourcing for what Behe said (It would be nice if someone would hurry up and add it in). JoshuaZ 00:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

One other related thought- even given whatever biases Isaak has, there's no reason for him to be biased in summarizing what claims the creationists are making. There could conceivably be an issue with citing the responses but given that the Index is designed to list the creationist claims and (among other things) assist in people locating claims, it would not support his cause to list claims that weren't accurate representations of the claims that were being made. JoshuaZ 04:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TSP. Thus far I have:

• Pointed out that the Dover source doesn't support the leading claim in the paragraph in question. OR is the convoluted interpretation that it does.
• Shown a number of quotes (such as the one about 400 PNAS "concerned with molecular evolution") from Behe's book indicating the existence of "scientific literature on the evolution of biochemical systems." These quotes make it obvious that any other statements in those sections (e.g "literature is totally missing [on modeling the evolution of the flagellum]", "nothing is there [that explains the evolution of vesicular transport]") do not mean that "there is no scientific literature on the evolution of biochemical systems." Of course my point was to select quotes that show that Behe did recognize the existence of "literature on the evolution of biochemical systems." Even one quote where he recognized the existence of such literature is enough. Throughout the book, Behe indicates his position that, as of 1995, there was no scientific literature accounting for evolutionary origins of biochemical systems. The fact that TalkOrigins claims otherwise is irrelevant not mainly because they are obviously presenting a misleading take on Behe's claim, but primarily because TO is a POV site and not a reliable source. Showing that TO claims are inaccurate simply illustrates why unreliable sources are not allowed on Wikipedia.
• Presented a well-sourced proposal paragraph which includes primary source material but doesn't analyze or draw conclusions from the material. I was accused of violating WP:NOR when all I did was remove improperly sourced and inaccurate material.

If anyone here thinks that "no scientific literature accounting for evolutionary origins of biochemical systems" is the exact same thing as "no scientific literature on the evolution of biochemical systems," then why not use the former in the article. It is more precise. HKT^Talk 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude - you selectively misquoted Behe, deleting the part where he says exactly what the source has him saying. You were caught posting misleading and deceptive information. In the interest of assuming good faith, I will assume that you were given those quotes by someone else and did not intentionally create that dishonest post. Let's call it an honest mistake, and move on. But stop pretending it was anything near truthful. Guettarda 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the very next sentence in Behe's book. I didn't simply delete the phrase to which you refer, I added ellipses. Context from that paragraph and from the whole book shows that the phrase to which you refer does not mean what TO indicates it means. Of course I selectively quoted Behe (it was not misleading or misquoting), as I wrote above, and for reasons I just explained above. I'm not surprised that regular editors to this article have Behe's book (I would be surprised otherwise), nor am I surprised that editors would look up the quotes themselves. I think you need to reread the relevant pages without selectively misreading yourself. Please try a little harder to assume good faith. And please don't move my comments. They were addressing only one part of your comments. They were clearly indented and signed, but I'll make it even more obviously isolated. Dude. HKT^Talk 01:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

...Er... well... I don't have Behe's book. But the evidence from the Kitzmiller trial I quoted above does cite the point well, in a very memorable image. Why don't we use it as additional material? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. It should be accompanied by the relevant passages from Behe's book and Behe's relevant testimony (leaving out any analysis of those and leaving out any analysis of Jones' ruling, obviously). What about the paragraph that I proposed above? HKT^Talk 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just borrowed a copy of Behe's book and it seems to be saying exactly what it looks like its saying from the quote here. If you think it means something else it would be nice if you would explain a) what it means and b) explain given the surrounding sentences how one figures that out. JoshuaZ 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as what it means, I wrote above that it means "no scientific literature accounting for evolutionary origins of biochemical systems" (in the case of page 72, the flagellum) as opposed to "no scientific literature on the evolution of biochemical systems." The text from Behe reads (emphasis in original; the part I didn't include before is demarcated with brackets):

The general professional literature on the bacterial flagellum is about as rich as the literature on the cilium.... [Yet here again the evolutionary literature is totally missing. Even though we are told that all biology must be seen through the lens of evolution,] no scientist has ever published a model to account for the gradual evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine. (end of chapter subsection)

Immediately, Behe qualifies what he means by "here again the evolutionary literature" as referring to "a model to account for the gradual evolution of [the flagellum]." In the quotes I produced above, Behe discusses literature on the evolution of biochemical systems. Where he dismisses such literature, he doesn't say that it is nonexistent. He simply says that he considers it inadequate in accounting for the origins of those biochemical systems through evolution. HKT^Talk 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How is Behe saying that there is no literature on the subject supposed to be interpreted as anything other than "there is no literature on the subject"? He clearly says that he considers the two cilium papers to be "unscientific" in their approach to the subject, "word-pictures". He says they don't address the issue. With regards to the flagellum, I have no idea what sort of convolutions it requires to convince yourself that "the evolutionary literature is totally missing" can somehow mean that such a literature exists. The statement that follow clarifies, rather than qualifies the previous statement - it says that, although publications exist which purport to deal with the topic, in Behe's opinion, they do not constitute scientific literature on the topic, but rather, just unscientific speculation. Which is, of course, highly ironic, since this is what Behe is doing. As he says on pp 185-6, he does not consider the publications that exist to be scientific. Your attempt at revisionism notwithstanding, when Behe says "the evolutionary literature is totally missing" he is asserting that the literature is totally missing, not that it isn't totally missing. Guettarda 22:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now we're making a little progress. I have been understanding "scientific literature" to mean literature from professional scientists, or literature in scientific publications, relating to science. You've agreed with me that Behe recognizes the existence of such literature. As far as I can tell, you have understood Behe's use of the term "scientific literature" to mean literature that follows the scientific method and appropriate standards of rigor.

Even according to your definition, the claim in the article is problematically imprecise. As I showed earlier, Behe recognized the existence of scientific research involving sequencing and the evolution of biochemical systems. What he found "unscientific" were studies relating to the origins of complex biochemical systems through evolution.

Putting that aside for the sake of discussion: If we accept your understanding of Behe's use of the term "scientific literature", the article should make it clear that Behe claimed that literature on the topic was unscientific, rather than potentially confusing readers into thinking that he claimed that no literature even proposed to discuss the origins of complex biochemical systems through evolution. The article would be more accurate and precise if it instead stated that "Behe claimed that all studies published that proposed to account for the origins of complex biochemical systems through evolution were unscientific in their methodology or presentation." Note further that Wikipedia can't make ultimate judgments on the accuracy of such claims; it may simply present reliable sources who have stated that those claims are inaccurate. P.S. Please re-read what Behe wrote. The "evolutionary literature" that he claimed was "totally missing" was literature on modeling the gradual evolution of the flagellum: "Yet here again the evolutionary literature is totally missing. Even though we are told that all biology must be seen through the lens of evolution, no scientist has ever published a model to account for the gradual evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine." (end of chapter subsection) HKT^Talk 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Behe grants two things:

• In scientific publications, there is scientifically valid literature on the evolution of biochemical systems (e.g. literature on sequencing).
• In scientific publications, there is literature that is claimed to be scientific on the origins of complex biochemical systems through evolution. This literature covers topics like the cilium, membrane-bounded organelles, and the coagulation cascade.

Behe only denies that the second type of literature follows scientific standards.

In any case, Behe explains what he means by "scientific literature" (emphasis added): "There is no publication in the scientific literature - in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books - that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or might have occurred. There are assertions [in the literature] that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.... Despite comparing sequences and mathematical modeling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be." HKT^Talk 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Discredited" again

I see that "discredited" has raised it's head again:

Despite being discredited in the Dover trial where the court found in its ruling 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.",^[1] irreducible complexity has nevertheless remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design and other creationists.

This paragraph seems to me to contain many elements of non-neutral phrasing: "despite"; "nevertheless"; and then the recurrence of "discredited". I'm just not sure I see what fact this word is representing; the theory is not 'discredited' in an absolute sense: there still exist people who believe in it. Whether those people are anyone worth listening to is for the reader of the article to decide, not for us to say that all the people we consider important have rejected a theory, so in the eyes of Wikipedia we are declaring it "discredited". This addition was stated in the summary as being "for accuracy" - what accuracy does it add? TSP 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That people believe in it doesn't mean it wasn't discredited. Calling it a theory doesn't make it one.

The concept of irreducible complexity was discreted. It is still a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design. How could we phrase this neutrally? Any suggestions? -- Ec5618 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We say what each person or group said, without use of words which suggest a particular interpretation like "Despite", or ill-defined weasel words like "discredited", and allow the reader to make up their own mind. From the NPOV policy:

"Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

As far as I'm aware this is what the paragraph in question did before the alteration (with the exception of some pre-existing Words To Avoid); I didn't revert, because the changes were made by a long-term contributor to the article and I have no wish to get into an edit war; but I wished to see whether other people agreed that the insertion of 'discredited' made the paragraph more accurate.

There is, as far as I know, no generally-accepted marker of what makes a theory "discredited". If there is, we can use it - "This theory fits the American Academy of Science's definition of a 'discredited theory'", or "This theory was described by the Royal Society as 'discredited'". As far as I'm aware, however, 'discredited' is a subjective assessment, and one that Wikipedia should not be taking it upon itself to make.

As an individual, I believe that most people will give far more credit to the Dover ruling and the various scientific papers than to the almost lone voice of Behe. But that doesn't mean that we should say "this theory is nonsense and no sensible person believes it"; our case is far stronger if we neutrally present the evidence - the few who adhere to this theory, and the many who dispute it - and let the readers make up their own mind. TSP 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph originally stated that "Irreducible complexity has nevertheless remained a popular argument". All that's changed, really, is that "nevertheless" is qualified and sourced.

So, the paragraphs above the one you object to explain that irreducible complexity was discredited. The paragraph you object to, in either incarnation, then summarises the above, either by the word "nevertheless" or by the phrase "despite being discredited". -- Ec5618 22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

True, the 'nevertheless' was an existing issue; I feel that the latest edit made the problem worse, however.

As you say, the paragraph summarises what is above: this is the problem.

The paragraphs above state facts. They state which claims have been disputed, in what way, and by whom. They state that the theory has been dismissed by the majority of the mainstream scientific community. They state arguments put forward by critics. This paragraph mentions it being criticised by the Dover ruling. That's all fine. It then assesses that these add up to the theory being "discredited".

In scientific writing, it would be unusual to state facts, then not draw conclusions from them. In encyclopedic writing, that is exactly what we do: it is our role to state the facts; it is the reader's role to draw conclusions. The facts do not need to be summarised by us, and we have no authority to summarise them. We need to simply report the words and opinions of our sources, while stating whose words and opinions those are. TSP 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The IC page is full of dogmatic statements and unsupported theory.

This quote was taken from the page:

[According to the theory of evolution, genetic variations occur without specific design or intent. The environment "selects" the variants that have the highest fitness, which are then passed on to the next generation of organisms. Change occurs by the gradual operation of natural forces over time, perhaps slowly, perhaps more quickly (see punctuated equilibrium). This process is able to adapt complex structures from simpler beginnings, or convert complex structures from one function to another (see spandrel).]

Show anyone the proof of the premise let alone the corollaries. Where is the lab experiment that demonstrates macro evolution? Where is the scientific method in any of the above statement? All that follows the first line, is a series of assertions based on the unproven premise.

Science has not shown us how the complex variants are created from natural process.

The "therefore" statements have been expanded to such numbers that the theory part has long since been forgotten by the "scientific majority."

How can we stand idly by while the scientific method is touted but not required to actually produce a result?

In terms of ID and IC, any refutations based upon evolutionary theories are at best suspect, but it would seem the majority are involved in refutation based on prior suppositions from all that flows from Macro evolutionary theory, including a blind belief in natural proecesses.

They can't prove it, but it simply has to be the only explanation.

Prove it! Mbrisendine 02:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See Macroevolution. TomS TDotO 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this response based on the idea that "proof" is a "lot" of dogmatic statements. Tom, do you know someone that can create life in a lab? Can they mix amino acids and proteins and produce from scratch a living cell. Has a laboratory sucessfully assembled the proteins of a flagellum motor in a pitri dish? This is news. Give me that link if you would.Mbrisendine 12:25 CST, 2 February 2007

Why do you expect that someone should be able to "mix amino acids and proteins and produce from scratch a living cell"? What does that have to do with anything here? Guettarda 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a decent point. This has digressed as it is not a page on evolution. Unfortunately, the IC article writers did not stick with IC as a theory, explain the pro's and cons and leave it at that. They also inlcuded conclusions of the as yet unproven IC theory and the conclusions of another well known but unproven theory. The text I quoted above was used in this article and I object to the way it starts by saying evolution is a theory but then goes on to dogmatically state all of the assumptions that come from such a theory. I can agree that certain conclusions of the IC theory may lead one to the ID article, but that is where the information in ID should remain. Information about Evolution should be linked not whole house quoted in this artice. As it stands this article is largely and op ed opinion piece that is not about the merrits of the IC theory but about what is does or does not imply.Mbrisendine 12:38 CST, 2 February 2007

And what does "mix amino acids and proteins and produce from scratch a living cell" have to do with evolution, either? With regards to the second part - how can one write about the merits of IC without providing context? WP:NPOV requires that we present all major viewpoints about an idea - to present a discredited idea like IC, without explaining why it has been discredited, not only violates the NPOV policy, it also does a disservice to anyone who reads the article looking for information. We have to present information fairly and fully. IC is an evolutionary hypothesis - since it's about evolution, we need to present not only what it says about evolutionary theory, but also what evolutionary theory actually says. Guettarda 19:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything is the answer the question you raise. Maybe this is the problem. The scientific majority is satisfied by the circumstantial evidence that evolutionary theory is fact and no one is interested in the whether or not the mechanism is proven or how that would apply to evolutionary theory at large. Wow.

About the rest....that's just it. IC says nothing about evolutionary theory. Scientists do. The conclusion that Behe draws may have implications for evolutionary theory. But since when is a unproven theory acceptably used as a dismissal of another theory. It would seem that macroevolution would have to be proven before it could be used as such.

Beyond that I have already mentioned elsewhere why I consider much of the "discrediting" information as largely rhetorical, and not scientific, but as you commented elsewhere, one cannot test an untestable theory. So I think I already know your answer. Mbrisendine 1:33 CST, 2 February 2007

The scientific majority is satisfied by the circumstantial evidence that evolutionary theory is fact and no one is interested in the whether or not the mechanism is proven or how that would apply to evolutionary theory at large - no, this is not an accurate description of the situation.

IC says nothing about evolutionary theory - no, IC is an evolutionary hypothesis. It says "our current understanding of evolution is incomplete because..." Of course, the "because" isn't actually true.

But since when is a unproven theory acceptably used as a dismissal of another theory - all theories in science are unproven. The scientific method does not permit "proof" - rather, it seems to refine hypotheses into theories - a theory being a very well-supported hypothesis. Evolutionary theory is supported by a wealth of evidence, hence "theory". IC is not rejected because it conflicts with evolutionary theory - it would be rejected even if there was no alternative simply because it is not a hypothesis, but rather, a collection of anecdotes...one which is used by its proponents, incidentally, as a reason to reject a very well-supported theory.

It would seem that macroevolution would have to be proven before it could be used as such - macroevolution is a scale of study, it isn't a theory. Saying "I accept microevolution but reject macroevolution" is like saying "I reject measurements made in feet, but accept measurements made in inches. I accept that the wall wall is 30 inches tall, but reject that it's 2 1/2 feet tall". Guettarda 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be safe to call IC a creationist hypothesis?

all theories in science are unproven - Agreed. Although this is a technicality as many would claim evolution is at least as good as “fact.” I must say I have never heard anyone use the term well-supported hypothesis. It’s rather refreshing to read.

Yes evolution is well-supported as long as everyone ignores all the questions it can’t answer. It is also well-supported by continually evolving explanations such as punctuated equilibrium. Every time a problem arises, a seemingly plausible answer is provided.

I protest the Macro vs. Micro analogy. Macro evolution would seem to require mechanisms which are not required by microevolution. Macro must be responsible for answering the amino acid to protein to living and replicating question. I don’t think Micro is required to answer this and Macro has not answered it.Mbrisendine 4:59 CST, 2 February 2007

Arch Example

Doesn't the example of an arch actually helps the case that irreducible complexity leads to a designer because people and likely engineers (intelligent designers) have to make the scaffolding, put it up, and build the arch?--Jorfer 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is the example of "natural arches", such as in Arches National Park. TomS TDotO 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The man-made example is still a bad one and should be taken out not just for that reason but because it indicates a support structure (see User talk:Jorfer).--Jorfer 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be argued that natural arches were created by God and creating a flagella is way more difficult then wearing away a piece of rock so the natural example is bad too.--Jorfer 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"easily reducable"

I noticed the misspelling "reducable" for "reducible" in the following sentence:

• Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easily reducable", eventually to a single part.

I wouldn't make any mention of this, and just silently correct the spelling, but I did check the reference, and noticed that the expression in quotes is not in the cited reference. The closest is "how easy it is to reduce".

Again, I wouldn't make a big deal about this, but it is in a hot spot, so I thought I'd at least mention it in discussion before proceeding.

What I propose to do, unless someone objects, is to replace the above sentence with:

• Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy ... to reduce", eventually to a single part.

TomS TDotO 14:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I am to blame for this confusion. I used the term "easily reducable" in quotes to suggest that I was using lingo, like "fresh from the freezer". I never considered that it could also be taken for what it would appear to be at first glance, a direct quote. Please, fix away! Maury 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All I would add is that the article states Behe's premise and McDonald's alter mousetrap simply does not address the premise as it is stated. Mbrisendine 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what you mean here. Are you saying that the article already makes this statement, or that it should make this statement? Maury 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean I would remove the content concerning McDonald's mousetrap. McDonald introduced his own mousetrap in an attempt to easily defeat the theory of IC. McDonald has not shown that he can take Behe's working mousetrap, remove one part, and keep the trap functional as it were. Now can IC be disproved..yes possibly, but let's not do it by false analogy and rhetoric. Let's let the laboratory do it.Mbrisendine 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm, on a lark I did just this about five years ago (after a friend and I got into the IC/ID debate). I used McDonald's diagram (albiet in a different form) to build the second-to-most-complex version of the device, where there is no "trigger plate". It wasn't much harder to "set" than the normal version, contrary to expectations. The trap worked fine. I'd be happy to build one for you if you'd like.

So I disagree. I think McDonald has done precisely what you claim he has not done. Maury 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW I found Behe's attempt to refute McDonald here. As I said before, I found his argument specious. McDonald himself states that his "mousetrap series" was not intended to be indicative of how evolution would progress, but simply a counterexample of how Behe's own example was not IC by any means. Behe's entire rebuttle is based on ignoring this note, after quoting it, and proceeding on evolutionary lines. Maury 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's a matter of opinion. Far from being specious I found Behe's explanation of how McDonald misses the analogy acceptable.

Since I agree with Professor McDonald that there could be mousetraps with fewer parts, the only relevant question is whether the mousetraps he drew are physical precursors, or merely conceptual precursors. Can they "be transformed, step-by-Darwinian-step" into the trap I pictured (essentially the same structure as the fifth trap shown below), as some people have been led to believe? No, they can't.

Mbrisendine 17:39cst, 2 February 2007

Is IC article Biased ?

Obviously this is like swimming upsteam.

One user reverts changes because the change is unexplained….ok I explained the changes.

Then an administrator reverted the changes and claimed “the material is relevant” but provided no counter explanation.

The next user reverted the changes and suggests a look at the “policies”. So policy 4…

4. Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

The article is not presenting the neutral viewpoint. Is makes reference to material that is logically flawed but draws damaging conclusions and some references are just plain wrong as I point out about the pseudoscience reference.

The pseudoscience reference is made by a purely biased association and replaces the word Intelligent Design with Irreducible complexity...this is an improper use of the reference...and yet I'm the only one saying it.......

No one that reverted the changes has indicated or shown that the scientific method could not be used to refute Behe’s claim of irreducible complexity. Thus how can they allow the ref. to pseudoscience to remain.

I suggest that user DenyColt read the polices. I’m not sure which one he's accusing me of not following, but all that have reverted my edits have not even held themselves to the standard of the first five policies.

I don't feel too bad. Mbrisendine 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the pseudoscience issue- multiple referrence are given which while focusing on ID all discuss IC as well. Furthermore, note that the Wikipedia article does not say that it is pseudoscience but that IC is frequently to as pseudoscience which is a claim supported by the refs. JoshuaZ 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias is involved in the decision to include or not include a particular reference. If IC can be legitimately thought of as pseudoscience then include it in the article. It is disengenous and biased to use a ref. pertaining to ID and switch the wording, and then use if for IC. The ref. made the exact comment as found in the article but the user who added it, subtitued IC for ID.

ID is a conclusion that may be drawn from IC but ID and IC are not one in the same.

ID cannot be tested in a laboratory and may be called pseudoscience. But IC, the idea that a functioning system cannot function with missing parts can be tested in a laboratory and is not pseudoscience, no matter how many people say it is. Mbrisendine 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As the intro says, IC has been effectively discredited. IC is an untestable hypothesis because it is too vague to disprove... it's based on anecdotes, not on falsifiable hypotheses. It's easy enough to show that Behe's anecdotes are not irreducibly complex, but it's impossible to disprove the idea that "some things are irreducible" without testing everything. Thus, the idea isn't scientific. Despite that fact, it has been presented as if it were scientific, using the language and appearance of science, hence the descriptor pseudoscience. In addition, IC is a crucial part of ID, and it is the most clearly presented portion of ID. Much of what has been said about ID applies directly to IC because Behe was the only one "careless" enough to frame an idea that was concrete enough to be easily discredited (which actually suggests that Behe has more integrity than his cohorts). Guettarda 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your position but I disagree. It it not vague. The claim is that one cannot remove a part from the functioning system and still have a working system. That is testable. The idea that you have to test everything it born out of the ID conclusion. ID is dependent upon the test being sucessful on everything. IC is not. If one could show that the e-coli flagellum can have 3 proteins removed and stil function, Behe's IC theory is dead by experiment. It's quite possible that IC will be disproven. But what I've seen is that much of the article is devoted to arguing that simpler systems exist. This does not address the IC theory but the ID conclusion. Mbrisendine 12:15 CST, 2 February 2007

IC does not say "you can't remove piece and have something still work" (which is, in many cases, self-evident - I can't remove the CPU from this computer and have it still work)...what is says is that "some" biological systems are too simple to have evolved from simpler component. Since it doesn't give any a priori way to determine which systems are too complex, there is no way to disprove it. IC is built on anecdotes. Most if not all of these anecdotes have been shown to be reducibly complex, but that doesn't disprove the hypothesis that "some" systems are too complex, short of testing every biological system. Hence, it's an untestable hypothesis, and is not scientific. Guettarda 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And, by the way, see Pallen and Matzke's paper in the October 2006 issue of Nature (784(4):784:790) which addresses the issue of bacterial flagella. Guettarda 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding your argument, Mbrisendine, that the problem here is the application of the term "pseudoscience" to IC? I believe this is an accurate statement of your position: Since IC can be tested in the lab, it is, by definition, not a pseudoscience. Is this correct? If not, could you post a short explaination of the exact issue? Maury

Maury, yes that is my argument but Guettarda disgrees. My counter to Guettarda is that only Behe's conclusion is untestable.Mbrisendine 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I asked for a definition because I do believe you are wrong on this. More specifically, I believe you are mis-applying the "testability" criterion.

The issue is not whether or not the topic is testable, but what happens when it is tested. One can easily define a test for astrology, for instance, and in fact this has been done many times. Yet no one claims that astrology is a "real science". The reason is that the astrologers either argue away any such test, or simply ignore them outright. THAT is what failing testability means; not that there isn't a test, but that the test doesn't make a difference. This is an important distinction.

Yes, I would entirely agree that your thought experiment would indeed invalidate IC, and therefore it appears to be testable. But do you really believe it would convince Behe? I think he would simply ignore the outcome, and state "well in THIS case I might be wrong, but in all these other cases..." Actually it's even more likely that he would simply argue the test away, completely, claiming it was invalid or inapplicable. You might think I'm being unfair, but a real-world example follows.

Behe claimed that the mousetrap was irreducibly complex. McDonald showed that this was not the case, and that it was actually a painfully obvious example of argument from incredulity. When faced with this, Behe immediately changed the argument. Even though McDonald very clearly stated that his sequence was not supposed to represent any sort of evolutionary pathway, a note that Behe actually quoted in his counterargument, Behe's discussion is based entirely on claiming that McDonald's examples are invalid evolutionarily. He never once addresses the original claim, that the mousetrap is obviously not IC. Behe simply refused to accept the outcome. This is precisely what "testability" means in the pseudoscience context.

So I think it's entirely valid to claim IC, yes, IC and not ID, fails the testability criterion. Behe has personally changed his arguments in response to negative outcomes, and that's the gold standard. Therefore I think its perfectly valid to call it a pseudoscience. Maury 15:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about controversial issues in Wikipedia

I'm a newcomer to this, so could someone more familiar with Wikipedia clarify something for me.

Is Wikipedia, even a "discussion" page, the proper place to debate a "controversial" issue?

Undoubtedly, a discussion page is the proper place to debate whether the Wikipedia entry is following the standards of Wikipedia for things like proper attribution for statements, whether it is presenting all sides in a controversial issue, whether it is biassed. My question is whether it is also considered appropriate to debate with the expert opinions cited in the main entry.

TomS TDotO 17:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In general, no, we are not supposed to debate the issue ourselves, merely to summarize and fairly present the debate. The challenge is that we must abide by the principle of NPOV which includes a requirement that our presentation of minority opinions be in proportion to how minor they really are. That can be difficult to sort out and often requires a lot of discussion. We also sometimes have to have discussions that look like we are debating the issue when in fact we are trying to educate each other on specific points in order to jointly write the best possible article. Rossami (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Errors, Bad Logic, and Misunderstandings in the Article

Since this is a controversial topic, I'll let others edit the page, but I'd thought I would offer my 2c:

1) "Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors" -- Actually, it is not clear what Behe means by this. Behe in fact thinks that biological systems did evolve from predecessors (though I don't know if he thought they came from more complex or less complex predecessors). Behe is not against the evolution of systems, but against the Darwinian mechanism. The systems have to come in holistically, not a step-at-a-time.

2) "These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally" As far as I'm aware, Behe does not dispute that their evolution was natural. Instead he thinks that the evolution was front-loaded. I.e., the origin-of-life (which is not the same as evolution) was not naturalistic, but the evolution from earlier forms was indeed natural, but not Darwinian.

3) "against the theory of evolution which argues no designer is required." The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life. These are separate research topics. IC argues against Darwinian evolution and against a naturalistic origin-of-life. It does not argue against a naturalistic evolution, and evolution (at least according to the major proponents) says little or nothing about the origin-of-life.

4) "The examples offered to support the irreducible complexity argument have generally been found to fail to meet the definition and intermediate precursor states have been identified for several structures purported to exhibit irreducible complexity" While this is interesting, Behe agrees completely that all of the structures he describes had precursors. The question Behe asks is how the transitions occurred -- did the evolution happen a step-at-a-time, or by jumps which skipped over large areas of useless search space.

5) "For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System" In addition to what I pointed out in #4, there is a current scientific discussion as to whether the flagellum is derived from the TTSS or whether the TTSS is derived from the flagellum.

6) "This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways" Interesting, but completely irrelevant to IC. If system A has a bolt, and system B has a duplicate bolt, this is not evidence of anything regarding the relationship of A and B, much less the mechanism that generated the relationship.

7) "Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question" This should read "some critics". Other critics think that Behe is exactly right in his descriptions, but simply fault his methodology for assigning a temporary condition (our knowledge of the reducibility of a system) as permanent.

8) "Irreducible complexity is generally dismissed by the majority of the scientific community" This may be true, and yet irreducibility has been used within more limited scopes in biology. For example, in "Genomics and the Irreducible Nature of Eukaryote Cells" it was argued that eukaryotes _could not have evolved_ from prokaryotes. The differences are more fundamental and holistic than to allow for that. Behe is arguing a similar argument, with the exception that he takes it a step further. So, while most do not agree with Behe's full irreducible complexity argument, many in fact use similar arguments in their own work.

Most of the examples of irreducible complexity need to be corrected in the light of the above, especially #4 & #5. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.155.33.225 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Do you have sources for all these assertions? Without sources, this isn't much use. Guettarda 15:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not for all of them right now -- I no longer have my copy of Darwin's Black Box. However, I can supply some of them. For instance, on whether or not the TTSS is the precursor to the flagellum or the other way around see Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems. For #4, you can see this article by Behe: "I had clearly noted that of course a large amount of work in many books and journals was done under the general topic of "molecular evolution," but that, overwhelmingly, it was either limited to comparing sequences (which, again, does not concern the mechanism of evolution) or did not propose sufficiently detailed routes to justify a Darwinian conclusion." Implying that there may be a non-Darwinian conclusion. I'll try to get more references. Question, though -- do they need to be by Behe or would Dembski's comments on Irreducible Complexity count as well, since the topic is IC and not Michael Behe? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.250.6 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Regarding the first point, Pallen and Matzke (Nature Reviews Microbiology 4 (10): 784-790 OCT 2006) address this

At least nine core flagellar proteins share common ancestry with core components of NF T3SSs. However, the scientific community is divided on the nature of their common ancestor. Some have argued that the NF T3SS was derived from the flagellum, based on the eukaryote-specific function of known NF T3SS, and the apparently limited distribution of known NF T3SSs relative to the broad phylogenetic distribution of flagella[34]. We, and others, have argued that the two systems are sister groups, as indicated by gene phylogenies and arguments based on parsimony, diverging through 'descent with modification' from a common, but simpler, ancestral secretion system[35, 36]. Regardless of the conclusion of this debate, the existence of NF T3SSs is 'proof of concept' that a flagellar subsystem can function for purposes other than motility. (where 34 is the Nguyen paper you referenced).

The second point is based on the Kitzmiller verdict, which takes Behe's arguments into account. Guettarda 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Viruses as IRC

A simple curious question: has anyone ever tried to make a case for viruses as irreducibly complex? From what I know of Behe he hasn't, but he seems to focus on molecular subsystems and not complete organisms (the term "complete organism" being admittedly inexact with a virus).

However, viruses are pretty minimal and it's hard to remove much from them to leave something that works. So why wouldn't they be considered IRC? I have a suspicion that they have been avoided by Behe and his colleagues because the assertion that they are degenerate descendants of self-reproducing organisms is a bit too easy to believe (even though nobody has much more than speculations about how it happened), demonstrating "scaffolding" in action. MrG 4.227.253.241 20:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you probably answered your own question pretty well :) Guettarda 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The question was more along the lines of "has anybody ever considered the matter?" I couldn't find anything on a Google search and your response suggests not. It is an interesting thing to think about, though, isn't it? If a virus isn't IRC, then why not? MrG 4.225.214.24 16:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussions of IRC seem to be restricted to a few "set pieces". In the world of life, only a few bodily functions or organs. As you point out, complete organisms (including viruses in this category) are not. But also larger patterns, such as the decidedly complex patterns of interactions between organisms (offspring with progenitors, predator and prey, ecology in general), patterns of the history and geography of life, and taxonomy (the "tree of life"). To address this here on Wikipedia, I think, at length would violate the policy "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought" in Attribution. I would be happy to discuss this in the Newsgroup talk.origins. TomS TDotO 19:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy if you did -- I would be reluctant to do so myself because I don't have a background in the biosciences and I am just doing a short-term study of evolutionary biology to satisfy my curiosity about the matter. I will be moving on quite literally as soon as I have done so, I've already seen enough dispute and mutual name-calling to last me for quite a while. MrG (www.vectorsite.net) 4.225.208.80 22:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Applying to"

The definition section begins with:

The term "irreducible complexity" was originally defined by Behe as:

"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Clearly, irreducible complexity is not a system; it is a term which applies to a system. The definition should be changed accordingly, no? Korossyl 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why this article is not even close to neutral

Shouldn't this page be entitled "Irreducible Complexity: A Criticism" or something similar? It is so ridiculous an article like this can make it onto an 'encyclopedia'. It is so obviously not neutral and intent on giving equal argument to both sides. There have been just as many arguments made on both sides of the fence (regardless of how good or bad they are) as to the validity of irreducible complexity. This page lists all of the arguments against irreducible complexity, but virtually NOTHING of the main arguments for the theory and in response to its objections. It is not current. The objections are familiar but no mention of the equally familiar responses to the arguments and counter-responses. Again, it does not matter how good the responses are. It matter that they are expressed, because this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a blog for anti ID people. This page contributes to academic ignorance because instead of telling the arguments given by both sides, it only lists those of anti-ID people and claims that "nevertheless, it continues to be popular among proponents of ID".

Here is some CLEAR INSTANCES of outright bias in this article:

(1) The history section is biased. The way Behe proposed his theory did not indicate in any sense whatsoever that it was an argument for God's existence. The actual content of his argument is completely different than the classic teleological argument. Also, what business does "Jacques Monod's Chance and Necessity provides a good discussion of the "triumph" of the mechanistic view in biochemistry." have in this section? This is not neutral or informative. It's a suggestion that the mechanistic view of biochemistry is correct, and there is no hint of a response to Monod's work.

(2) The origins section only reveals the criticism of Behe. It says critics argue that irreducibly complex systems can be evolved (+1), argues against one of Behe's claims made in 1996 and only intended in 1996 (+2), and states the anti-ID response of the judge at the Dover trial (+3). Proponents of ID have offered many, many responses to these criticisms yet the section ends here with NO SPACE for the other side.

(3) The examples of irreducible complexity are only explained and then CRITICIZED, without any space given to responses to these criticisms. (save one sentence) In the blood cotting case, the argument for it is not even explained! Yet they go onto criticize it and suprise suprise, do not explain Behe's response. In the eye case, as least one sentence is given to Behe's response, but the section overall is just as bad and misleading. Behe does not think that this evidence proposes any help to the Darwinist trying to explain it, and again the bulk of his argument for why the eye is irreducibly complex is absent where the vast majority is given to criticisms. The flagellum section is perhaps the most ridiculous because only criticisms are given, and NO MENTION of ID responses despite the numerous treatment of the subject by them and those specific criticisms for YEARS. Even if you do not agree with the responses and arguments for it, they still need to be here!

(4) It gets no more obvious than this. After this follows five full-blown sections of criticism of IC, and NO SPACE given to ID responses and arguments for IC, despite that they have been given in many available mediums for years. It doesn't get any more obvious than that.

It seems the verdict is clear: this page is OBVIOUSLY biased and FAR FROM neutral (I am astonished that it does not say the neutrality is disputed). I don't want a pro-IC page, I want a neutral one, and that is possible.

If this page does not change I am going to create another that is truly neutral (maybe like an encyclopedia?????) and make hell for this article every chance I get because it is basically a cleverly disguised anti-ID blog. Whoever runs this site will be able to easily tell from what I've said that this is far from neutral.

Takumi4G63 09:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Takumi -- some of your points sound reasonable. I also don't see how the Monod sentence contributes anything to the article. Furthermore, Behe is a notable figure, and I don't think it's unreasonable to give specifically him a sentence or so of response where there is currently none. This feels in accord with NPOV: Undue weight.

However, the majority of your points are diffused by careful perusal of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). See especially:

• NPOV: Pseudoscience
• NPOV: Undue weight
• NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
• NPOV: Giving "equal validity".

ID is widely considered a psuedoscience from every major scientific organization, many of which have published direct statements saying so. This triggers the pseudoscience sections of NPOV. Furthermore, IC is a minority position, this triggers the undue weight provisions. To give ID the same amount of space as you suggest would be a violation of NPOV Undue Weight. Lastly, on your desire to create a new "neutral" IC page -- this is governed by the Content forking guidelines. Romanpoet 17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)