Irreducible complexity and mere complexity

Faith & Science Conversation
102

As I pointed out in my previous post, Behe continues to defend his original definition. He has not aboandoned it.

Now let’s talk about this so-called IC2, as you dub it. I tried the link you provided, but it took me to an article on regional transportation systems. Would you mind researching that link again? I have a good idea on the direction I want to go here, but I do not want to make any assumptions I can avoid making. Hence, the larger context is very important here.

Thanks in advance for your help

103

How can he continue to defend it if he has revised it?

Let’s face it, Joe. You thought Swamidass was bluffing, and you were wrong.

“An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.”

As Swamidass noted, this is preposterous, as it disqualifies the major evolutionary mechanism! We biologists hypothesize that virtually every evolutionary pathway is IC by Behe’s revised (IC2) definition.

2 Likes
104

ISorry about that. There was a typo (an extra 1), The actual link is…

In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade | Discovery Institute

Behe continues to defend the term “Irreducible Complexity,” but the definition has changed to include this new concept. Some ID proponents is often assumed that IC1 = IC2, but this is patently false. Also there is no way to demonstrate if a system is IC2, but there are objective ways of determining if something is IC1.

Also, there are additional definitions of IC too. Once we have discussed IC2 to your content, I can introduce those too. =)

2 Likes
105

I can understand your confusion here. The reason why this happens is really clearly being unpacked right now

If IC adopts a fixed meaning of IC1, then it has been falsified. If, however, its definition always shifts for rhetorical convenience, then it is a unfalsifiable. I think this situation gets very confusing for many people on both sides of the debate. For example, as an earnest ID advocate, you did not even know about the multiple definitions used. Many ID opponents also will just focus on one definition and falsify that. But IC now refers to a cluster of totally different ideas, because of its consistently shifting definitions over the years.

So, it is simultaneously falsified (in the specific cases) and unfalsifiable (in that new definitions can keep popping up).

So how did this happen? I have a theory.

I think the most charitable interpretation is that ID advocates instinctually know something that is actually true. Life was created by God, and it does declare His handiwork. There is something about its complexity that makes it surprising that God would have used natural processes to produces it. All that is true, and the hope is that there is a way to scientifically define this complexity so that this might be recognized in science.

That is the sentiment behind Irreducible Complexity, and it is a strong sentiment that persists even when specific ways of expressing that sentiment end up failing. New ways of expressing the same sentiment are tried.

In my opinion, the place where this goes wrong is not in the sentiment which is rooted in recognition that God created life and that life is beautiful and grand. Rather it is in that the hope that science can see this truth by scientific means. In my opinion, this hope is unfounded.

5 Likes
106

thanks Joshua. I will check it out and get back with you as I am able

1 Like
107

That was very useful.

108

I hope I can take this opportunity to ask for clarification? I’ve seen this ‘novel body plan’ phrase used before, but never seen any explanation other than ‘with features like a wing, or an eye.’

As someone who grew up in the mindset of evolution, it seems obvious to me that a cat and a dog, for example, have the same fundamental body plan: four legs, ears, tail, fur, etc. On the other hand, you probably aren’t referring to the body plan of having a mouth, digestive tract, and anus; that’s most animals except sponges and jellyfish, and it wouldn’t make much sense to claim common descent for them but not other groups.

So, if we use the example of a wing, does that mean all birds follow the same body plan, and therefore could be an example of common descent? But what about an eye? That goes back way farther (in the evolutionary view), before the divergence of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and sharks. I admit that I’m really confused by this argument.

Would creationists say that humans and apes exemplify ‘novel body plans?’ It seems to me that, although we can list a great many differences between our species, the vast majority of them are not so much novel features as differences in proportion: apes have shorter legs, longer arms, smaller brains, more hair, etc. What is there that’s truly new, without getting into philosophizing?

I’m genuinely trying to understand this rather than just poke at a touchy subject for the sake of it. I hope if it’s been discussed in more detail elsewhere, someone might link me?

109

Hi Lynn…

I appreciate and encourage your genuiine interest. You ask a great question. I have to confess that, to an extent, I really don’t know how to offer you a precise definition of what a novel body plan is. I will say that the more distinclly a body plan can be identified as a novel body plan (in other words, the higher up in the taxonomic order we find a particlular body plan), the more confident we can be in saying that it’s so. Encyclopedia.com offers the following definition, which is very much in line with others I have seen:

A body plan is a group of structural and developmental characteristics that can be used to identify a group of animals, such as a phylum.

Thus, the example of wings becomes a great example. Creatures that have fully formed, functional wings are said to have evolved ultimately from creatures that had no wings according to the grand narrative of evolution. That’s fine, but according to evolutionary theory, every step along the way from the wingless ancestor to the extant winged creature must confer a functional advantage ( I realize that those who invoke drift might object here, but drift is a different subject ). Therefore, if we want to say that it is absolutely true that extant creature x has descended from ancestoral creature y through an evolutionary process, we should be able to explain a detailed evolutionary genotypic as well as phenotypic step by step functional adaptive continuum for wings (or any other novel body plan). If and when such an account is ever forthcoming, then we can analyze that functional adaptive continuum to see if we can gain any insight as to whether that process was the product of purely natural processes or intelligent agency.

Keep in mind that there is no such detailed adaptive continuum currently avaiable. Despite this, there are many folks in these forums - as wonderful and well meaning as they may be - who would forclose on the possibility of intelligent agency a-priori.

110

[quote=“deliberateresult, post:109, topic:17521”]
I have to confess that, to an extent, I really don’t know how to offer you a precise definition of what a novel body plan is.[/quote]
I appreciate your honesty. Would you agree that the term is suitably vague for someone who wishes to avoid empiricism?

I don’t see how those two things are equivalent. Also, taxonomy is not higher/lower, it is analogous to leaves on a tree, with the outside being modern.

[quote] …the more confident we can be in saying that it’s so. Encyclopedia.com offers the following definition, which is very much in line with others I have seen:

A body plan is a group of structural and developmental characteristics that can be used to identify a group of animals, such as a phylum.

Thus, the example of wings becomes a great example.[/quote]

How can that possibly be, since wings are found in multiple phyla?

I object and disagree, as you are deliberately or cluelessly misrepresenting evolutionary biology (by denying the existence of drift) to attack it. You can’t say “according to evolutionary theory” when you’re omitting a huge part of it.

Do you realize that according to actual evolutionary theory (and not your straw man misrepresentation), many of the steps can be deleterious, since the fundamental unit on which selection acts is the individual organism, not individual traits?

Do you realize that this is one important reason why recombination is a major generator of variation?

[quote=“deliberateresult, post:109, topic:17521”]
If and when such an account is ever forthcoming, then we can analyze that functional adaptive continuum to see if we can gain any insight as to whether that process was the product of purely natural processes or intelligent agency.[/quote]
Interesting. If you’re interested in biology, why wouldn’t you prefer to analyze actual biology, instead of analyzing what people say or write?

[quote]Keep in mind that there is no such detailed adaptive continuum currently avaiable.
[/quote]Have you even looked, Joe? Remember that Behe made a similar claim but had to walk it back under oath after confessing that he had not read the primary literature relevant to his claim!

4 Likes
111

Joshua:
from the onset, I smelled something rotten in the state of Denmark. As I have previously confessed, I have never seen an “alternative definition” of IC. Moreover, I have never seen an alternative definition put forth in any ID literature. Finally, whethere one likes or agrees with Behe or not, it should be recognized as out of his character to change such a bedrock definition.

After reading the referenced article, I believe my suspicions to have been confirmed. I also believe that you have taken a most uncharitable (and unfair) reading of the article.

First, it should be pointed out that it is pretty common practice for scientists to refine their concepts. After all, just look at all of the changes and contingincies in the century and a half of redefining the details of Darwin’s orgininal idea.

Second, the context of the article points to a very clear reading of what Behe was saying and why he was saying it. The article itself addresses three biologists who raised objections to IC. Behe painstakingly points out why each objection is off base. All three objections, for different reasons, were based on incorrect understanding of what IC actually is. Behe concludes his article offering what he genuinely hopes will be a definition of an evolutionary pathway for an irreducibly complex structure. His offer is sincere and clearly in the spirit of encouraging research into IC systems.

Moreover, the definition he offers is for a slightly different concept than IC itself. While IC deals with biological systems, Behe is offerring here a potential research avenue for determining an irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway (while reinforcing his skepticism that such pathways exist). The two are different concepts. There are ways to determine whether a biological system is, in fact, irreducibly complex (such as Scott Minnich’s genetic knock-out experiments with the bacterial flagellum). Once a biological system has been identified as IC, then the question of an evolutionary pathway to such a system can be entertained. For goodness sake, Behe even opens the sub-heading in which the alleged “new” definition appears by affirming his original definition and he prefaces the “new” definition by offering it as a tentative “evolutionary” defintion for determining potential irreducibly complex pathways. The two concepts are not exactly the same. The second is clearly offerred in the spirit of providing clarlty for those who disagree with him while at the same time encouraging them toward research.

It should be noted here that before responding to you as I have, I solicited the input of a technical science editor. Full disclosure: she happens to be the bride of my youth. Also full disclosure: she is a highly independent thinker and considers herself a theistic evolutionist. She whole heartedly agrees that my take on this is correct.

I think it is fair to say that if you asked Behe to define IC, he would unhesitatingly cite what you call IC1, and that if you then asked him for an tentatnve evolutionary definition of an evolutionary pathway, he would then offer what you claim as IC2. Indeed, they are much more accurately identified as IC1 and EICP1.

Finally, it was grossly unfair and clearly self serving of you to have expected me to “know that there are two different definitions” of IC. Indeed, even if I had previously read this article (which I had not), it would have been easy to miss that you were referring to EICP1 as IC2. You were essentially expectng me to read your uncharitable mind. And as far as I can see, this lone reference in this single article provides the entire basis for your accusation. To repeat this emphasis one last time: there is absolutely nothing in any of the lterature I have read to suggest that there is any legitimate basis at all for this accusation.

112

First off, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I appreciate it, especially after some of the “abuse” you’ve received on the forums.

So you do not define EICP1, which I think means Evolutionary Irreducibly Complex Pathway 1. Is that correct? And you are trying to make a distinction between IC systems (IC1) and IC pathways (EICP1). Is that right?

It is not unfair to point out that IC is attached to many different definitions. I believe that is exactly what we have shown here. I will show you more too. And there are, actually, more than 2 definitions.

How exactly is this unfair? Why is it so uncharitable to correctly describe the many definitions associated with the term “Irreducible Complexity”?

And I suppose it is self-serving to marshal data and logical arguments to make one’s point. I agree with that. It also serves the common good too, when it is based on accurate data, which my arguments have been. So yes, I am serving my “self” here, but I am also serving you: by exposing you to Intelligent Design as Behe describes it.

This is false. I am asking you to recognize the history of the idea you in which claim expertise. And this is not the lone reference. As I have noted earlier, this ends up being the definition on which Behe focuses in his two articles in Protein Science (in about 2004 I think), and his book the Edge of Evolution (in about 2010 I think).

As you note…[quote=“deliberateresult, post:111, topic:17521”]
Moreover, the definition he offers is for a slightly different concept than IC itself. While IC deals with biological systems, Behe is offerring here a potential research avenue for determining an irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway (while reinforcing his skepticism that such pathways exist). The two are different concepts.
[/quote]

That is right; IC1 and EICP1 (IC2) are different concepts. Yet they both use the term “IC”, which is my point exactly. IC refers to multiple distinct ideas. It is entirely valid to ask which definition one is using. You didn’t even know there was more than one definition till I showed it to you. You probably still don’t know the other definitions.

This of course demonstrates that the original hypothesis of IC is false. IC1 is not a reliable way of identifying systems outside the reach of evolution. By moving from IC1 to ECIP1 (IC2), Behe himself is tacitly (indirectly and silently) acknowledging this too.

I understand you are trying to save face here. But I am not being uncharitable.

I’ve taken the time to defend you several times in this thread. And I am not asking you to read my mind. I was asking you to tell me the definitions of IC. As we have already seen, there are at least two of them. One is of an IC system (IC1) and the other is of a IC pathway which may or may not be to a IC1 system (IC2 or EICP1). Clearly these are different concepts, and both referred to as IC.

2 Likes
113

There’s no smelling over the internet. Maybe you should look for the source of the odor closer to home?

I see nothing unfair about Swamidass’s reading.[quote=“deliberateresult, post:111, topic:17521”]
Behe concludes his article offering what he genuinely hopes will be a definition of an evolutionary pathway for an irreducibly complex structure. [/quote] I think you just admitted that Swamidass is correct!

[quote]His offer is sincere and clearly in the spirit of encouraging research into IC systems.

First, it should be pointed out that it is pretty common practice for scientists to refine their concepts.
[/quote]
Yes, but in real science, such revision is driven by data, not debates nor books aimed at laypeople, nor textual analysis, nor . It’s not at all common for a scientist to claim that others have the duty to test his hypothesis, as Behe does.

[quote] His offer is sincere and clearly in the spirit of encouraging research into IC systems.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, but I can’t see how Behe is sincere when he can’t be bothered to test his own hypothesis, while “encouraging” others to do the real work. Why did Behe explicitly exclude neutral evolution?

[quote=“deliberateresult, post:111, topic:17521”]
For goodness sake, Behe even opens the sub-heading in which the alleged “new” definition appears by affirming his original definition and he prefaces the “new” definition by offering it as a tentative “evolutionary” defintion for determining potential irreducibly complex pathways.[/quote]
That dog won’t hunt, as the context is evolution in both cases.

Again, why did Behe explicitly exclude the most common evolutionary mechanism (neutral)? I don’t see any justification for doing that. Do you?

If you are correct and Behe agrees with you, why does he use the same term to describe concepts that are not the same?

[quote]The second is clearly offerred in the spirit of providing clarlty for those who disagree with him while at the same time encouraging them toward research.
[/quote]Why would Behe be “encouraging others toward research”? Can’t Behe do his own empirical work in his own lab at Lehigh?

And how do you know that Behe was writing “in the spirit of providing clarity” and not obfuscating?

The fact that you had to drag out your anonymous wife’s support says it all. Is she more qualified than Swamidass? Could she possibly have agreed with you to prevent an argument?

Should I rebut a rejection of my manuscript by a scientific journal with hearsay from my wife? Is your wife more expert in biology than Swamidass?

Then why did Behe simply use IC to label both?[quote=“deliberateresult, post:111, topic:17521”]
Finally, it was grossly unfair and clearly self serving of you to have expected me to “know that there are two different definitions” of IC.[/quote]
Why is that unfair, when you denied that there was a second definition and falsely accused Swamidass of bluffing? Aren’t YOU being unfair by claiming to understand evolution better than scientists do?

Those terms aren’t mentioned by Behe. They are yours! Does Swamidass do time travel, that you would have expected him to apply your names before you told him of them?

[quote]You were essentially expectng me to read your uncharitable mind. [/quote]Swamidass is being more than charitable with you.

I am very confident that you’re not reading enough of the literature to make, much less justify, such a claim.

Now, why did Behe explicitly exclude neutral evolution when he revised the term IC?

3 Likes
114

Some good points @benkirk…

Exactly. What exactly is the defense @deliberateresult can offer for this straw man in the definition?

Exactly.[quote=“benkirk, post:113, topic:17521”]

Indeed, even if I had previously read this article (which I had not), it would have been easy to miss that you were referring to EICP1 as IC2.

Those terms aren’t mentioned by Behe. They are yours! Does Swamidass do time travel?
[/quote]

Just like “mere complexity”, @deliberateresult it is fine to use new terms but please at least define them so we know what you are talking about. And if you want to use different acronyms…fine. I don’t really care, but they both use Irriducible Complexity (IC), which is exactly my point from the beginning. Relabeling IC2 as EICP1 does nothing to change my point (though it is humorous that you try to burry “IC” in the middle of the acronym =).

Exactly. This is not the lone article. I was giving a good summary of his last 10 years of work, to focus on IC2 (i.e. EICP1), because IC1 failed to make his point (or as some would say, it was falsified). The reason I gave that link is that it is the first reference I knew of (in about 2000) to IC2.

And to be clear, there is absolutely no accusation here. I’m just accurately reporting the history of the IC concept, which has taken several definitions over the years.

I think the unfair part of this conversation with @deliberateresult is that he has been indignant that I do not know the first thing about ID and IC (see the beginning of this thread), yet I clearly do. He has still yet to back down from that.

2 Likes
115

Just a few more thoughts…

Absolutely. The fact that Behe has added/changed the definition of IC to include EICP1 (or IC2) does not mean that IC2 is false. It is very normal to adjust theories as things develop. Usually, however, scientists are very explicit about discarding the old notion that was falsified, so that it does not pollute assessments of the new revision.

That, however, is not what this conversation is currently about any ways. You did not even know that this revision happened. So how in the world can we have a sensible conversation about IC until you catch up on the basics?

As I wrote before…[quote=“Swamidass, post:105, topic:17521”]
If IC adopts a fixed meaning of IC1, then it has been falsified. If, however, its definition always shifts for rhetorical convenience, then it is a unfalsifiable. I think this situation gets very confusing for many people on both sides of the debate. For example, as an earnest ID advocate, you did not even know about the multiple definitions used. Many ID opponents also will just focus on one definition and falsify that. But IC now refers to a cluster of totally different ideas, because of its consistently shifting definitions over the years.
[/quote]

And you very kindly demonstrated my point by writing…

So Behe introduces a new definition for IC, and even after reading it you predict you would not realize there was a change to the definition. That is exactly my point. This whole conversation is totally clouded by ambiguous definitions of IC, and this entirely prevents meaningful conversation about the topic.

In some important ways I’m really thankful to @deliberateresult’s participation here. You are (unintentionally) displaying all the confusion I had written about here; almost as if it is a prophecy. I’m not a prophet though, but at least this is a great object lesson for why clarifying these definitions is central to the conversation.

5 Likes
116

Joshua:

First, I do appreciate very much your willingness to engage. I am also grateful that you have gone to bat for me here on these forums. I also think that your post in reply to David Klinghoffer was well crafted (for some reason I do not have access to that topic, so thanks for sharing the post!)

However, I would like you to consider that Klinghoffer does indeed make a point concerning your tendency toward condescension: it comes through loud and clear in your two most recent posts to me. I have no problem admitting that I am wrong. I’ve been wrong before I’ve admitted it. This really isnt about me. But for the record, inasmuch as you have agreed that IC1 and EICP define different concepts:

it is true, then, that EICP1 is not a “new” definition of IC as you claim, but a definition of a different term, EICP1. therefore it remains at best up in the air that Behe has redefined IC. Behe is of course free to redefine the term if he wishes, but to my knowledge he has not. Maybe he has, but if so, I’m not aware of it. Furthermore, he is free to elaborate on IC and related concepts ( you are correct that EICP1 stands for evolutionary irreducibly complex pathway. Forgive me for not defining it; I guess I assumed it was self evident).

I have never claimed experitise. My specific claim was - and remains - that I have followed ID more closely than most. In claiming that Behe has changed his definition of IC, you say he has done so “indirectly and silently.” This says a lot about what he hasn’t said. You claim that IC1 has been falsified. I’ll tell you what: when Behe publicly declares that he has changed the definition of IC, I will concede your point . When Behe confesses that IC has been falsified, I will be convinced. After all, as I’ve said before, IC is not the place where I plant my flag. Should IC ever be falsified, it would not falsify ID as the strongest causal candidate for the origin of life. But in the meantime - no offense - I am going to believe Behe over Swamidass. For what it’s worth, I will continue to respect you.

That being said, I want to reiterate that two independent threads have been started here that can be traced to one comment I made in the “Cornelius and Joshua” thread; a comment which you have conceded was correct. I have been called by you (and others) to therefore defend two different forum topics that I did not start, and to champion IC to a greater extent than I frankly care to. Furthermore, this “two definitions” farce has become pointless. I remain invested in coversation, but if I am to continue here, it will be concerning what I consider to be the foundational evidence for the strength of ID: the information and technology that undergird all life. To that end, I am currently in prayer. Perhaps I will return to the pages of these forums with a new thread.

117

Behe has redefined it because still uses “IC” to refer to it.

“EICP1” is your term. Behe hasn’t used it.

“Like malaria, HIV is a microbe that occurs in astronomical numbers. What’s more, its mutation rate is 10,000 times greater than that of most other organisms. So in just the past few decades HIV has actually undergone more of certain kinds of mutations than all cells have endured since the beginning of the world. Yet all those mutations, while medically important, have changed the functioning virus very little. It still has the same number of genes that work in the same way. There is no new molecular machinery.” --Michael Behe

True or false, Joe?

2 Likes
118

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.