06.30.07
Irreducible complexity minus ID
Darwin Strikes Back (of molecules and men).
I would certainly grant that the ‘irreducible complexity’ has been abused for design arguments. But set aside the design conclusion and the issue is one that won’t go away.
To say that no evidence has been offered for IC is a bit absurd, has anyone on either side offered any evidence for anything.
The IC question should be seen as a tough one for Darwinists. The response is that incremental steps might lead to the given IC claimed for structure X. Hypothetical speculation is not a clinching argument. What’s more, its demonstration in one case (so far not provided) would not confer empirical proof on all other cases.
Proponents of Intelligent Design have used the notion of irreducible complexity to bludgeon evolution theory by insisting that complex biological structures ranging from the human eye to the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved in stages because none of the intermediate versions would have functioned properly. They have never offered evidence for this notion of irreducible biological complexity, they simply declare it by fiat as an inescapable logical conclusion. Unfortunately for Intelligent Design, scientists are striking back and providing detailed evidence about the evolution of complex biological structures.