Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Quoting Judicial opinons doesn't make them relaible sources

WP:RS I can cite Supreme Court opinions chapter and verse that state African-Americans aren't eligible to be citizens, what Hrafn is asserting in here the lead is that an aspect of scientific inquiry is pseudoscience when what he's attacking is intelligent design. There is a difference and it is pushing a Point of View, that judicial opinion cited doesn't change the fact that the subject of this article is a scientific theory of which is still open to scientific inquiry. The fact that the larger issue of Intelligent design is open to legitimate charges of being non-scientific is irrelevant to this article.Awotter (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And I can cite chapter and verse where SCOTUS overturned that. In any case, the section that I cited was a finding of fact -- based on expert scientific testimony, not a finding of law. It is WP:RS -- take it to W:RS/N if you want to claim otherwise. IC is not "scientific inquiry", and the cited article makes very clear that it is "pseudoscience". As for Awotter's specious argument that "there is a difference", IC is the most prominent argument underlying ID (in the words of the KvD decision "As referenced, the concept of irreducible complexity is ID’s alleged scientific centerpiece."). I am therefore restoring this material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the finding of fact was also based on testimony under oath of proponents of "irreducible complexity", and it's not a theory, it's a theological conjecture. .. dave souza, talk 06:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've actually tried to add some information to this effect. I noted, without changing the direct quote from the ruling, that it was a bench ruling with a single judge. (Simply adding the line, "The result of the bench trial was the ruling by the judge...")This is a verifiable fact that is not in dispute by anyone. It is consistently removed by editors. I am pretty amazed that multiple people would want to remove facts from the discussion that are known to be true by all parties. This is an extremely discouraging sign and quite damning to the concept of Wikipedia as a whole. Even verifiable, undisputed fact is subject to removal by whomever is the more zealous party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.224.236 (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

All rulings in US courts come from judges. I don't see why it is necessary, unless you are adding it to make a WP:POINT, which your comment "to this effect" seems to implicate.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, if something is factual, relevant and not editorial, I don't understand how or why your thoughts on whether it is "necessary" dictates the article. I can't imagine feeling comfortable enough to decide what facts I thought were necessary for other people to see or not. It is very clear you are trying to make a point with your edits. The difference being that I am adding facts, and you are removing them. Why you feel comfortable removing facts within an assembly of knowledge is for you to determine. The WP:POINT is not applicable as there is no editorializing whatsoever, other than what a reader may infer from the facts. Under your judgement, any listing of any fact could be considered a WP:POINT because the contributor clearly wanted the reader to know the facts that he/she was listing, and therefore, was trying to make WP:POINT. This is a desire to edit something out looking for a justification. It is not Wikipedia's job to edit what people infer, but simply supply them with verifiable facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.224.236 (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is redundant, and therefore not relevant. Only single judges conduct trials where the result is a ruling rather than a (jury) verdict. A a bench trial is simply a trial conducted by judge. Therefore the current wording covers everything already. If the reader wants more detail/clarification, they can follow the link to KvM. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that you don't find it irrelevant or you wouldn't be so determined about changing it. I find this frustrating, but I am not the zealot you are, so I won't continue this change back and forth. I have made my case that the added details are factual, add clarity, and are only redundant to those completely familiar with the legal system. Those completely familiar with the legal system, however, would also know that a judge's ruling is not scientific data itself and is strange addition here when listed as a conclusion to a debate. Even though I agree with the ruling that ID is religious in nature and its conclusions are not science, the line from the ruling here is quite inappropriate. A judge's ruling is a legal opinion and does not belong as factual evidence in an encyclopedic entry. The ruling only belongs in the section on the court case itself, not as an conclusion to other ID arguments.

The fact is, however, that the man did write that, so my opinion of whether it was appropriate or not seemed far less important than whether it was factual. I am not about to put myself in a position where I am rationalizing the single-handed removal of verifiable facts. The idea that "if someone wants clarification" they can look it up when a few words will do at no cost to you, it quite obviously a ploy to justify a pre-determined outcome. You either want to control want the reader infers, and that is to infer a greater weight and authority to a single man's opinion than it should have (there is no other reason for that ruling to be mentioned in that section) or you simply have a knee-jerk reaction that any change that is not damning to ID must be an entry from and IDer, so therefore must be resisted. Either way, you are removing facts based on your own desired outcome, no matter how you justify it. And that, it seems, is Wikipedia: the greater zealot controls the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.224.236 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a fact. However, your intent appears to be to weaken the statement by introducing doubt into it. If someone is found guilty of a crime by a court, we don't try to second-guess the court's decision by saying "According to Judge so-and-so, he was guilty...", unless we have some other discussion to bring to the table. If and when ID goes up before SCOTUS, then we can cite that. But before then trying to introduce language implying that the court ruling is unreliable is very much against NPOV. silly rabbit (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Judges make rulings. Saying "a ruling by a judge" is needlessly wording. Adding additional words which convey no additional information (to the average reader), while making the sentence more difficult to read helps no one.

I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that "facts" are removed and that somehow this achieves some "desired outcome". The meaning of the sentence is unchanged by your text. The readability though, is considerably degraded. Guettarda (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Irreducible complexity/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article, though thorough in its contents, seems to be quite biased. It needs to be edited in order that any point of view from the author(s) can be left out as so far as that is possible. As it stands, it is clearly criticizing the ID point of view.

Last edited at 13:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok I just want to test a premise

Now this may not seem relevant at all except it follows the basic premise of irreducable complexity, I am only trying to get a biologist here to state what is false in my premises, since my own ability in biology at a molecular level does not extend much beyond transcription translation and the krebbs cycle. I know strictly speaking this isn't the place for it, and that wikipedia isn't a forum (although from this page you couldnt recognise that), but a biologist opinion on what I write would be very much appreciated. In no way am I trying to be 'original', I dont have the intelligence, but Im trying to get a better understanding about the feasibility of the theory within my own mind, so comments (however critical, even with insulting words) would be much appreciated.

As I see it evolutionary changes on the microscopic level, or the 'nanoscopic' level, are due to errors in DNA replication, It would be great if someone could explain to me (or point me to an article) that explains why these errors in relication occur. These errors have a percentage chance of happening with every complete mitotic cycle (i.e. with DNA replication), again I would like to know what probability there is of a mutation. So... if an incorrect protein is produced due to a mutation, the chances are it will not be harmful and will not be benefical (am I right?). Looking at it from a bigger picture, chances are with each DNA mutation a cell will not be radically different, I may have an erroeous understanding here, but is not the whole of an organism the sum of its parts? Therefore the whole of a cell is the sum of all of its molecular constiuent parts, governed by genes in the deoxyribose nucleic acid. Looking at it like this, in order for a cell to change to a notable difference in function will take many reproduction cycles, and the chances are that this function will not be passes down when the organism as a whole is reproduced. The chances of a favourable change occuring are very slim, and even slimmer of being selected. Therefore, without any quantitative data before me, based on my sketchy knowledge of the relationship between macroscopic and mincroscopic evolution, it could theoretecally take too much time for an amoeba to evolve to what we are today (i.e. longer than it has taken), without a kind of guiding factor- that is the theory behind IC is it not? If so, could someone tell me why exactly it is rendered pseudoscience, im sorry if I have been to icoherent for anyone to understand me, but I have attempted to write down what I know with an incomplete knowledge of evolutionary biology.

BTW, not that anyone cares, but the problem I have with pure natural selection is that it can represent aspects of pseudoscience, many defend it simply based on the fact they do not like their belief systems challenged, and they do not fully understand why the theory is currently superior themselves. People sometimes defend it with irrationality and ignorance, often with ad hominems against attackers. Additionally it (as it is intended to be), is a backwards worked post hoc rationalisation of the development of the species, with scientists like Dawkins (and here i cut some slack, with anthropamorphising and simplification sometimes being necessary for public intellectuals), claiming that evolution 'justifies this', or that X develops due to the fact that cells 'know' this is the most favourable option. This view is not only problematic as it is entirely macroscopic, but also because it again works backwards in a post hoc fashion, it also seems to grant the idea of a kind of independant goal or intelligence to evolution as a physcial force or even an entity, something which should be confined to religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.39.142 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In asexual reproduction, the hypothesis you posit above would be correct. Mutations occur almost exclusively as a result of errors and the vast majority are either irrelevant or fatal to the organism. The point you're missing is the law of large numbers. There are so very many amoeba in the world that some beneficial mutations are inevitable. The other issue is that even a very small benefit to the organism's survivability will propagate across the environment in an amazingly small time because of the compounding effect of the organism's reproduction. There have been a number of numerical analyses studying these factors. I don't remember whose work I first read on this issue but I think it might have been a Steven J Gould essay.

In sexual reproduction, your starting hypothesis is incomplete. The act of sexual reproduction itself increases the error rate, increasing both the irrelevant and fatal and the beneficial mutations. Again, most mutations will be irrelevant or fatal but the law of large numbers applies. By the way, we almost never see the effects of the fatal mutations, though, since they usually fail long before the organism is born. The point is that with so many sexual interactions (think millions of sperm per sexual encounter, for example), some fraction of beneficial mutations are inevitable.

The other problem with your analysis may be an underestimation of the error rate. Without numbers, it's hard to say that you've actually underestimated but remember that in some conditions, errors are dramatically enhanced. Different atmospheric conditions resulting in higher levels of ultraviolet have been suggested as a cause of local increases in mutation rates and thus in evolution rates. Again, it might result in a very high proportion of fatalities but it can expose mutations that were previously irrelevant but are now beneficial. And since the change has killed off all the competition, the new organism can rapidly fill the niche. Think of the rapid and recent growth of antibiotic resistant bugs as an example - an evolutionary change that has expressed itself independently many times in a matter of only a few years.

Rereading your analysis, I also think I see another point worth discussing. You posited above that it should take multiple reproduction cycles to produce "a notable difference in function". That would, I think, not generally be true. If the DNA of a single-celled organism is changed, that change will be immediately propagated to the organisms future offspring. In a multi-celled organism, it depends on which cell. A change to the DNA of a muscle cell will do nothing (except perhaps cause cell death or some other malady such as cancer) but does not get propagated at all. A mutation in one of the sexual stem cells, however, gets propagated immediately. In neither case does the mutation even have to be expressed in the original organism. By the way, recent research has shown that mutations are not limited to DNA. Other elements within the cell that were long thought to be completely controlled by the DNA are now being recognized as having a controlling or modifying or sometimes mitigating capability of their own.

I don't claim to be an expert in this area either. I count myself merely as a well-read amateur. I think you would be more compelled if you read the numerical studies directly. I hope this helps some, though. Rossami (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I thank you very much for your time, and Its niice to be awnsered when you dont quite have the knowledge to ariculate yourself correctly. Your answer shows me that there are things which I would need to read up on further (e.g. meiosis) before I can make a conclusion in my own mind, and I guess there needs to be quantitative data invlolved (which is quite difficult to get). Thanks for pointing me in the right direction and thanks agian for bothering to decipher what I have written.86.140.39.142 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Kitzmiller ruling ID science" :
  • "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." [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science|Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]
  • [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science|Memorandum Opinion, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The antibody example

In a recent edit, the anti-body rebuttal was removed. A key part of the justification given was that the article no longer holds the anti-body argument as an example to be rebutted. I can't dispute that logic but given the popularity of the argument and the consistency with which it seems to be rebutted, I wonder if it should be added back in both places. I've seen it mentioned at least as often as the flagella and more often that the coagulation cascade.

The other part of the removal was that "it appeared to be original research". I remember when it was added to the article. While it was clearly added in the author's own words (which we have to do to avoid copyright problems) and while the tone may have been inconsistent with the rewritten tone of the rest of the article, it was sourced content. If you want a quick and dirty source for the counter-argument, you could use the Scientific American article from several years back. Rossami (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

At the Panda's Thumb blog recently there was some discussion about the evolution of the adaptive immune system with references to the research literature that may be useful to (1) provide the required citations to avoid the "original research" problem, but also, maybe to (2) provide a more recent claim from the "intelligent design" advocates about the immune system. Panda's Thumb: Luskin and the ID movement on immunology: immune to evidence TomS TDotO (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. If it was not original research, i apologise, but without citations it is impossible to see this. If re-added, it still needed to be rewritten, it was a very convoluted explantion, imo. But overall, what does it really add to the article? It is just a more complicated claim of IC, with a more complicated explantion for why it is not IC. How many examples need to be added? It is obvious that all the examples ever given by inteligent design advocates are dismissed by unbiased scientists, do they all need to be shown? If this is one of ther most common arguemnts, maybe it should instead replace one of the less common ones?Yobmod (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

More on the bacterial flagellum

Some recent information on the bacterial flagellum is discussed at Mark Pallen's blog: The Rough Guide to Evolution. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Flagged article due to possible violation of NPOV

Regardless of whether or not you accept the theory of IC, there is something awry in the content of this article. If the article does represent the majority view (IC and ID are not valid), then that can be reflected in the lead and subsequent discussion, but that would mean that the critcism (response) section needs to be reserved for those who dispute that majority opinion. However, the criticism section contains the same opinion as the rest of the article, which creates a de facto one sided discussion. It's akin to having a political debate on a news program and only inviting someone from the left and someone from the far left. It's clear that the writers of this article are trying to have it both ways. IC and ID are criticized in lead, body, and response sections. Arguements against the validity of the subject of an article need to either comprise the main points of the article, or be reserved for the criticism (response) section, not both.

Also, there is no such thing as an opinion "of the scientific community." The scientific community is not a monolithic bloc with a single representative. It is valid to say "the majority of the scientific community believes..." as long as there is a verifiable citation to accompany each stated opinion. Otherwise, for anyone to speak for "the scientific community" is no better than a polititian claiming to speak for "the American people." Strobels (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

On the last point, the sources disagree , read the article "claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large" is sourced.

There are no responses of that sort in scientific sources that hold water. the response is simple disagreement as to whether evolution can explain supposedly irreducibly complex structures. There is nothing more to add apart from "proponants disagree" which is pretty obvious from the article content. The article describes the theory, then describes the responses. responses to the responses are not needed for NPOV, when they are simply reiterations of the inital theoryYobmod (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The article you cite is simply a quote from a judge's (who is not a scientist) opinion. The idea that the majority of people who hold degrees in a scientific discipline share the same belief against IC or ID may be true, but this reference does not support that. Your statement "There are no responses of that sort in scientific sources that hold water" is not a statement of fact, but an opinion. The "response" section does not differ from a "criticism" section, and again, what should be a positive statement of what a theory is, the lead paragraph of the article, is actually a trojan horse. The article should be an unbiased statement of the theory, with objections reserved for "response" or "criticism" sections. In my opinion, this article tries to poison the well from the jump. Thus, my objection still stands. Strobels (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So if the responses you claim exist really do, why don't you give us sources to improve the article? At the moment we only see one editor claiming an article is biased, with no evidence given. Also, you have misunderstood the lead - it does not give an introduction to the article, it should summarise the whole article, therefore must contain the criticisms. The concept should be introduced in the first sections, which it is.Yobmod (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as i can tell, the responses of the scientific community give the responses of the scientific community. What responses are missing? Peer reviewd journals where scientists agree with IC? Where? Also the current lead does explain the term, and space is given over to proponents explanations. It is a very simple concept - what more should be said in the lead to balance it? Or you really mean that you want all criticism removed?Yobmod (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My objections may be beyond the scope of this article, and please note that my arguement is an arguement from reason, not a battle of citations. Both the IC and ID articles have changed drastically since I first saw their postings a while back. Before, the articles used to be a straightforward presentation of the theories, with criticisms included in their own section. Since the articles are entitled "Intelligent Design" and "Irreducible Complexity" it makes sense that the thrust of the article should be a factual statement with positive evidence for the theory, with a section reserved for detractors. Most of Wikipedia, from my observation, seems to be arranged this way. If the thrust of the article was to discredit the theory and not simply present it, then the title should be "Objections to ID" or "The Case Against ID." I may be mistaken, but it appears that the article(s) have been taken over by louder voices (or those with time enough on their hands to make constant re-writes to keep their version on top). To put it plainly, it's like putting GOP staffers in charge of maintaining an information page on Obama. It is unlikely that I will continue to object simply because I don't have enough free time, not because I have conceded the point.

Overall, it may not even possible for ID scientists and methodological naturalist scientists to have a fruitful discussion, since they don't even agree on what science is. To me, there is a huge difference between saying that we don't currently have the ability to observe and/or measure pheomena outside of our universe that may be affecting it (i.e. supernatural, deity, etc.), and saying empirically that nothing exists outside the natural, observable world. The latter is a philosophical presupposition. Some scientists may feel comfortable deciding a priori that there are only natural causes for natural phenomena, but I am unable to make that philosophical leap of faith. I want to follow all of the evidence wherever it leads.Strobels (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

But without citations, how do we know that the POV you say the article is ignoring even exists? That's why we need them. You say it is biased now, but i think it covers all the main viewpoints. Which points is it missing? and where are the sources from which you learned about them? What "positive evidence for the theory"? The article isn't Intelligent design proponents ideas of Irreducible complexity, therefore it gives most attention to the most common viewpoint, which is that IC has yet to be proven to most scientists satisfaction. WP articles on scientific topics have to conform to the majority view of the scientific community - even if that view is wrongYobmod (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm just about at a loss for words to make my point any clearer, but here it goes. I didn't say that a viewpoint was missing, but that the placement seemed odd to me. ID is someone's theory, but the article reads as if it was written primarily by a critic of the theory, not the proponent. I understand the general merits of a "majority rule" approach to WP, but it runs the risk of becoming a self-licking ice cream cone. It's as if the article says, "Here is a theory proposed by a minority of scientists that asserts that the majority of scientists have reach a false conclusion, but don't bother looking into it because the majority have concluded that the minority are wrong." Do you see, even in the smallest way, what I'm talking about? Strobels (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

ah, so you don't find the content to be POV, but the order of presentation? To my eyes, the lead starts with the proponents' definition, and the first section is all about the proponents' definition, the the specific examples start with the proponents' statement about them being IC, followed by refutation. You prefer these to be the other way around? Maybe if the wrote a version of the lead here on talk, i would understand more easily. I have nothing against IC: i don't believe it, but think it is a worthwhile theory for showing the in principle-falsifiability of evolution, and has spurred good research in order to refute the initial examples. That it could in principle be shown to be true doesn't change the fact that no example has so far been given that convinces the experts. Adding responses from the intelligent design side would even be fine, as long as they say something new, and are from notable writers.Yobmod (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua. This helped a lot. I guess what it comes down to is that I am philosophically opposed to the way Wikipedia does business. Consider this statement from "Undue Weight": "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." That statement is amazing to me! That means you can have 50 mediocre, self-referencing, circular-reasoning, sources of documentation on one side of an issue, but just one iron-clad source on the other, and the 50 win (please don't respond asking me for documentation for my analogy. It's just an exaggeration to make a point about the policy).

I feel like a Yuppie who just walked into a biker bar and realized that this isn't the place for me. Excuse me as I tip toe back out slowly. Strobels (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not as bad as it may look. Your interpretation of WP:UNDUE needs more background info, that's all. Those 50 poorly-reasoned documents could be outweighed by one decent source - it would all depend on how they all measured up to the Wikipedia:reliable sources guidelines. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing post per talk page guidelines) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Replaced post removed from SheffieldSteel - discussion is germane to overall topic of this section. Namely, is this article on IC constructed properly. Comments denote rationale for modifying the article and do not violate the soapboxing policy.)

Just a final thought: Following the same train of logic, the Wikipedia articles on Judaism and Mormonism should predominantly contain an opposing view, since the majority believe that their teachings on the nature, character, and will of God are wrong (if the majority believed they were right, then the believers of those groups would be in the majority). But in fact, the majority of print in those articles is favorable to their POV. True, there are criticisms, but they are relegated to a small, specific section and are not characteristic of the articles as a whole.

Now, some may respond to my statement and say, "that's an apples and oranges comparison," since many believe that science deals with the "real" world, but religion (metaphysics) is merely personal preference. But even the mere belief that science is somehow a "more valid" epistemological approach to understanding the world than metaphysics may itself be a minority view worldwide (I don't have a survey on that question). I would submit that the big questions of life: "who are we," "how did get here," "is there a God," "does God expect me to act one way as opposed to some other way," and "will I be judged and rewarded or punished for what I do" are more significant and dire questions than anything science wrestles with. But somehow, answers to those questions get a pass in Wikipedia.

But, before you say, "yes, but science can verify with facts," remember that most ideas in the total history of science "verified by the facts" have to later be amended or discarded altogether in light of new evidence. Remember, today’s rock solid belief in evolution to the detraction of intelligent design based on "the scientific evidence" is only is less than 200 years old, but the belief in a created world vs an non-created one by scientists had been around for a lot longer. Now you could say, "yes, be we are much more advanced than those primitive 'scientists'," but how will scientists 1000 years from now view our current level of technology and understanding? Let's just say, "go with what you know, but don't be married to it." The more dogmatic you are, the worse your humble pie will taste if you turn out to be wrong.Strobels (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Judaism and Mormonism are not criticised from a scientific standpoint for reasons which, frankly, ought to be obvious. As for the rest of it, debating with other editors is not a valid use of a Talk page; debating with yourself, even less so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussion about the construction of the article. My comments, like most of the discussion above centers on presenting a logical argument for a change. Whether you agree or not with my argument, this is what I have done and does not violate WP policy. Also, I did not argue that Judaism and Mormonism should be criticized from a scientific standpoint; please re-read. I didn't see this as a "debate," but I suppose it is if a debate is whenever people discuss something they don't agree upon, such as how to compose a WP article. Strobels (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

IC is a concept which, while based in religion and thus inherently dogmatic, nevertheless presents itself as a scientific topic and a challenger to "Darwinism". It is like a 150-pound man stepping into the boxing ring of scientific debate to challenge Lennox Lewis for the world championship. One predictable round later, you are complaining about your friend getting punched, and suggesting that, to be fair, a Jewish gentleman and a Mormon sitting in the front row should also be punched. Neither your complaint nor your suggestion seems reasonable, under the circumstances. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with most of your points in such a fundamental way, that to discuss them here would likely violate the policies you referred me to earlier. I recommend we take this up on a personal talk page. I'll post a response on mine shortly. Strobels (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE - This issue has come to somewhat of a conclusion and I withdraw my NPOV dispute of this page based on the specific issues I raised above. Further details of the discussion are contained on my talk page. Strobels (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification Tag Removed RE: Protein Counts for Bacterial Flagellum

I have clarified the unspecific counts on the differences between the Type III secretory system and the Bacterial Flagellum. I also provided a link to Matzke's excellent paper which details the discovery process, defense and specific functions of the different proteins involved in the Flagellum system. 72.16.237.66 (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally would prefer "most proteins" to have been changed to "40 out of XX proteins" rather than just "40 proteins", just so the number is put into perspective, but (my niggles aside) it looks like a good edit, so thanks :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I could not find a source with a hard number. Miller states 50, Matzke says 20 major and 'another 20-30 proteins with roles in construction and taxi' based on Berg and Macnab 2003. If I find a total I will update it with the correct total (assuming there is a single number). 69.149.49.42 (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Information is given on the second page of Scott EC, Matzke NJ (2007). "Biological design in science classrooms". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 Suppl 1: 8669–76. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104. PMC 1876445. PMID 17494747. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Behe contends that all of the more than 40 different proteins that make up the flagellum must be present for the flagellum to function. ...

The flagellum, although elucidated long after Darwin, is a useful case to examine. Contrary to the assertions of Behe and Dembski, a survey has shown that only 20 of the 42 proteins of the Salmonella typhimurium flagellum are universally required in bacterial flagella; and of those, 18 have already been found to have homologous related proteins that function in other, simpler biochemical systems. [ref. 23] Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ (2006) Nat Rev Immunol 4:784 –790.

Feel free to reword that to suit. . . dave souza, talk 08:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect tone, bias and slant

This article has been written in the style of an argument under the guise of informative writing. The pro-evolution bias is obvious and works to the discredit of the article's subject matter. It should be well noted that articles written here are meant to have the intention of informing, not of persuading. Such questionable statements include numerous like:

"Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance"

Also, there are many clauses which indicate opinionated sway such as:

"It is dismissed by the scientific community..." "Nonetheless, irreducible complexity continues to be cited as an important argument..." "In an often mis-quoted passage..."

Those are merely a small fraction of them, as they are strewn in and about the whole article.

I propose a total overhaul or paraphrasing of the entire article to be written without biased voicing, so that it can be used as an educational read, not an essay by which to preach from.

Knaive (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal fails to meet the requirements of Neutral point of view policy (which shows and balances viewpoints rather than adopting one idealised viewpoint) and has specific requirements for NPOV: Pseudoscience, avoiding giving it NPOV: Undue weight or NPOV: Giving "equal validity", while NPOV: Making necessary assumptions about the validity of mainstream science. . . dave souza, talk 08:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How else can one rephrase "dismissed by the scientific community" without changes it meaning? If it seems NPOV to some, it is because it reflects reality, which has an inbuilt bias towards real science.Yobmod (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree more, this article is so bias. But I think people are not stupid these days, this practice will backfire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.104.99 (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it amazing that anyone here cares about what the "scientific community" thinks about IC, since it obviously opposes their view. So if they dismiss it obviously it is wrong? Come on! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You really don't seem to understand WP:WEIGHT, and the specific provisions of WP:NPOV/FAQ which require pseudoscience to be shown in the context of its reception by the scientific community, without giving "equal validity" to pseudoscience. IC is presented as "science", and so has to be assessed by the standards of science. While its proponents may deny this, it is clearly a religious concept and as such is also a matter for expert theological opinion. WP:NPOV does not mean credulous repetition of minority claims. You are, of course, welcome to discuss specific points, but your blanket assertion simply shows a misunderstanding of NPOV policy.. dave souza, talk 13:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at John H. McDonald's page (Ref 32) on explaining the reducibility of a mouse trap. It is completely unconvincing in proving any reducibility. Adding a coil to the wire, adding cheese requires knowledge of the effects of the coil and the purpose of the cheese. This does not happen by chance. This is one example of where the one trying to disprove the analogy of the mouse does not understand that it is not the parts of the trap, but the complex function of each component that matters. Just like the functions of the parts of an eye are complex in themselves and one would have to understand their function and purpose in order to select them as parts of the complex machine (eye). They just by random selection came together to form an eye that sees? Each complex component must not only function in its own right, but must integrate with the other components to function as a whole. So can we explain how simple components became complex components, or simple components joined others to form simple machines, or complex components joined others to form complex machine for a particular purpose and actually works, by some form of random chance? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your misunderstanding here: Natural selection is not random at all. See the evolution of the eye for how gradual build-up and modification is selected for. You keep what works, and when you add something (mutation) that makes it work better, that is selected (kept) as well. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, which takes an educated decision. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No it does not 'take an educated decision' -- all it takes is differential survival rates -- the core concept underlying natural selection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, and this guarantees the existence of a necessary function that works? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: yes. For a slightly longer answer, read the article on natural selection. For a still longer answer, read a book on natural selection. But in any case, this thread has wandered well off its original topic, and outside this talkpage's intended topic of discussing improvements to this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to Arch

I agree with Hrafn who removed several links to other articles. No complaints from me. But the link to arch got me to thinking. Under the heading Arch#Construction it begins "An arch requires all of its elements to hold it together, raising the question of how an arch is constructed." Isn't that a concise statement of "irreducible complexity"? I don't know whether it would be appropriate to refer to that. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not without a WP:RS it wouldn't. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Useful clarification, and there are already two mentions of the analogy in the article so I've tweaked the sentences to add the relevant links.[1] As the second example mentions, a natural arch shows how such arches form with no intervention by a "designer". Amusingly, there are often vestigial structures in the form of capitals to the columns supporting the arch, where the projecting capital formed a support to the temporary centering, a device commonly used in aquaducts.[2] The first example cites a magazine requiring purchase to read. . . dave souza, talk 14:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

Seems most of the body is about disproving the premise of the article, and does not provide balanced information. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell us what information is it missing?YobMod 14:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The problems do not lie in what is missing, but what is present. The opening sentence is a good example: "This article covers irreducible complexity as used by those who argue for intelligent design." The disambiguation offers only a link to Systems Theory. The error is repeated in the opening sentence of the lead: "Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument made by proponents of intelligent design...." That is tantamount to asserting, "Natural Selection is an argument made by proponents of atheism...." This error is carried into the discussion above as "IC is a major component of ID...." (as though there is a single unified theory of intelligent design) - although I'm sure there would be an uproar if somebody suggested the equivalent "Darwinism is a component of atheism." IC is a refutation of gradualist evolutionary theories, and nothing more. Gordon Rattray Taylor, in "The Great Evolution Mystery" posed the very same objections a quarter of a century ago, and I rather doubt he was the first. The NPOV problem in this article is so pervasive I don't see how it can be salvaged.Flagmichael (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Natural selection is an argument made by proponents of atheism..." could easily be refuted by citing John Haught, Ian Barbour, John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, Kenneth Miller, and large numbers of other theologians and scientists who find natural selection and religion fully compatible. The statement "IC is an argument made by proponents of intelligent design..." appears to be factual. Do you have an example of any current scientist, theologian, or other interested expert who advocates IC without ID?Agathman (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As previously cited, Gordon Rattray Taylor, who to my knowledge has never given any indication of attempting to invoke ID (in fact, he is openly scornful of creationist arguments), lists a number of instances he refers to as "coordinated development" in which gradual and progressive modifications do not make sense (op cit Pp 94-114). He concludes, "Many of these modifications possess an all-or-nothing character which makes it very difficult to understand how natural selection could have produced them." However, authority has no standing in the logical argument (nor in science, for that matter). My point is that identifying IC as a component of ID is logically identical to identifying natural selection as a component of atheism. Both are wrong for precisely the same reason; the subject in each case is not dependent on the purposes of the adherents. That the Nazis invoked Darwinian theory to justify their genocide does not make Darwinian theory a component of Nazism. To say so, whether or not it can be justified by sophistry, is patently misleading - and that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Flagmichael (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This article deals with a term proposed by Michael Behe, a little over a decade ago. The term he created is very much a part of the ID movement. The argument made by Taylor may be similar, but the usage and its connotations are not

Just as the ID article deals with the current ID movement, and only mentions older notions of a designed world tangentially, this article deals with a concept proposed by an intelligent design advocate, and should not focus on older notions that share some characteristics. -- Ec5618 (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If the article is about the phrase rather than the topic, you have a point... but the article would still need a re-write to accomplish that. IC (the subject) is exactly the same as Taylor's "coordinated development" and other objections to gradualism in evolution. In every case the objection relates to the inability to identify, even in workable theory, how gradual changes could account for a known feature. What any particular author chooses to call his examples or where he chooses to go with the observations are immaterial; the usage is precisely identical. Connotations, being completely subjective, are outside the scope of an encyclopedic article. It might also be helpful to rename the article to something like "Objections to gradualism" and redirect from IC to reduce the bias that suffuses this article. Flagmichael (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So, Flagmichael thinks they're the same. Blatant WP:OR. For anything to appear in WP the same argument has to be verified by a reliable published source. Per WP:TALK, please provide the required source. . dave souza, talk 08:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone would be interested in adding a citation to Gordon Rattray Taylor in the list of "Forerunners". (By the way, I realize that this is off-topic, but I cannot let pass unchallenged the assertion that the Nazis invoked Darwinian theory.) TomS TDotO (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the hazard of slipping off-topic, but the comparison is important. For example, Dr. Arthur Gutt, the SS officer who was director of the Office for Population Politics and Hereditary Health Teachings, was quoted in the New York times, "... all civilized races stand in imminent danger of degeneration because civilization has turned natural selection, which eliminated the sick and unfit automatically, into 'counterselection'...." (Harry Bruinius, "Better for all the World" p 275). The international Eugenics movement (founded by the man who coined the term "eugenics" - Darwin's cousin and friend, Francis Galton) depended completely on Darwinian theory, because if positive traits could not be inherited as Darwin suggested then eugenics was a fraud.

More to the point, the parallel with IC relative to ID is very close indeed. Nazism could have existed without eugenics, but the party of Adolph Hitler chose to incorporate it. ID can exist without IC, but some proponents have chosen to incorporate it. It is technically correct enough to say "IC is a component of ID" or "Darwinian theory is a component of Nazism" in the sense "lasers are a component of communication devices." The statements are misleading in that they give the impression the elements are no more than a subordinate part of the application and that all applications of the sort mentioned require the elements, leaving only context to make clear that is not so. It is in that way the article goes wrong, and why I identify the problem as NPOV. Flagmichael (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Your linkage of Nazi policy to Darwin is defective. (i) Galton was an advocate of "positive eugenics", not the "negative eugenics" the Nazis advocated (which can be traced to the fad for eugenics in the US, during the 'eclipse of Darwinism'). (ii) Darwin himself clearly disavowed the morality of applying selection to the human race. (iii) The Nazi use of evolutionary language was merely a superficial veneer, for the purposes of propaganda, over racist preferences that had nothing whatsoever to do with objective "fitness" (i.e. blonde hair, blue eyes, narrow noses, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Epic fail of Godwin's law, Flagmichael. So some Nazis referred to natural selection: their ideas had much more to do with de Gobineau's concepts. Galton was interested in heredity, which long predates Darwin's theory. The Spartans practiced negative eugenics a while before publication of OtOOS. The eugenics movement occurred during the eclipse of Darwinism and had more to do with non-Darwinian concepts of evolution and heredity. Of course ID can "exist" without IC, as it began as creation science relabelled without that new catchphrase, but IC was its shining new claim to scientific credence and has been central to presentation of ID since IC was published. Not, of course, that it's a terribly new concept. Your last sentences are rather incoherent, but you seem to be arguing against something that isn't in this article. Be specific. . dave souza, talk 08:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The very tenuousness of the link between Nazism and Darwin was my argument. It is a parallel for the relationship claimed for IC and ID. An article on Darwin or natural selection should not identify either as "a component of nazism", and an article on IC should not identify it as "a component of ID." If I have not been able to demonstrate the NPOV problem to this point I don't have any hope of doing so. My renew my strenuous objection to the NPOV tone and context of the article, but I see the doctrine has too much support to be corrected - I don't see a future in it. Good day, all. Flagmichael (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at Gordon Rattray Taylor's book, The Great Evolution Mystery. Just skimming through chapter 5, pages 94-114, and about the only reference to something like IC seems to be this: "The eye is not by any means the only example of an organ created by a great many changes taking place in perfect harmony, though it is perhaps the most striking." (page 94) I'll spend a little more time on this book, but at present that seems to be insufficient basis for giving Taylor credit for the concept of IC. Can anyone give me some help - or maybe convince me to mention Taylor? TomS TDotO (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Taylor's book has some mentions of "coordinated innovations", "... changes", "... development", but does not clearly (to me, at least) spell out what he means by "coordinated". However, he did make reference to a book by T.H. Frazzetta, "Complex Adaptations in Evolving Populations". This book is precisely a discussion of the apparent difficulty of evolving interdependent functions in a gradual way. For example, the first chapter compares and contrasts the construction of machines with the evolution of living things. Therefore, I'm adding a bit about Frazzetta to the "Forerunners". I don't know why I haven't run across a discussion of Frazzetta before. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"The very tenuousness of the link between Nazism and Darwin was my argument." Last I checked, Darwin was not a senior member of the Nazi Party. By contrast Michael Behe, the originator of Irreducible complexity under its current title, is a Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Both Behe & the DI promote IC as supporting ID. That others, prior to the invention of ID, promoted similar arguments without promoting ID, would appear to be irrelevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

1st Paragraph

Currently includes the sentence: "It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design..." This may be too fine a point, but IC is NOT an argument for ID, but only an argument against natural selection. As far as I know there are NO scientific arguments for ID.Desoto10 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is correct, since it says "intended to", and the intent is indeed to support intelligent design. That it fails to do so does not affect the intent. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A slightly clearer phrasing might be "It is one of two main arguments that attempt to indirectly support intelligent design, by arguing against natural selection, the other being specified complexity." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Does argue against natural selection, or does it point out a limitation of natural selection? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It argues against the ability of natural selection to produce all the organs/etc we see today. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that its intended target is not natural selection, but gradual, bit-by-bit evolution. The idea being that several changes have to occur simultaneously, because if even one of the changes does not occur then the result would not be viable: the changes are mutually dependent. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hrafn's rewrite is IMO better than the original sentence, as his version makes explicit what is only implicit in the original and this is a complicated subject (i.e. no hiding the ball or the average reader is going to be confused). IC is of course (as a matter of logic) only an argument against NS; it can be an argument for ID only if the only two possible theoretical candidates are NS and ID, and that is what the Court referred to in Kitzmiller (p. 64, Opinion) as a "flawed and illogical contrived dualism" (and a very common false dualism it is).

• The intended target of IC and ID is indeed NS. ID advocates clearly are not satisfied with a naturalistic theory that says "Oh yes, and by the way, every once and a while there are these incredible jumps (known as "hopeful monsters") that aren't bit-by-bit, and those jumps occur by natural means (i.e. "random" variation, selection & replication) also, just like the little bitty changes. They're all the same, theoretically." ID claims (in its strongest sense) that a valid example of IC refutes NS as it is commonly explained. That is not an unreasonable position; Darwin himself actually agreed with this. But it's a hard question to answer without thinking about it within the context of an actual valid example of IC, of which we have none.

• While I think there may be something to the distinction between "against" and "pointing out a limitation," I also think it is just too subtle for the intro. Maybe in the middle of the article is a decent place to articulate this. SixPurpleFish (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Hrafn needs to take a vacation from this article. It appears that this has become very personal for you. With all due respect, that is not what an article on a contraversial issues needs. This article is not about proving or disproving IC but providing the best information available to the reader on the subject matter. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Founders Intent: I do not see any way that either of my two comments on this thread could reasonably be interpreted as taking this 'personally'. I would therefore suggest you keep your thoughts on my participation to yourself. As to "proving or disproving IC", the "levels of acceptance" by the scientific community of WP:FRINGE topics should be covered in their articles. In any case, I can see no relevance of that point to this thread -- which is about IC's objective not its 'proof or disproof'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say your statements from Opening Paragraph on show your determination to say IC is pseudoscience or rejected by science. You continue this for many paragraphs, as others argue for strict adherence to putting only content related to IC in the article. You want to make sure that everyone knows that IC is crap from the get-go. Why do you have such an agenda? That's not what Wikipedia is about. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

SixPurpleFish: I recognize that I'm in the impossible situation of trying to make coherent commentary on an intrinsically incoherent concept, so I won't try to push my own reading of IC. But I can't resist pointing out that IC is surely as adamantly opposed to real alternatives to NS such as sexual selection and genetic drift.TomS TDotO (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Tom, thanks for your (very civilized) comment. I certainly agree that these concepts are often incoherent. I'm not sure that the conceptual disease is terminal (but maybe so).
• First, I think that a more rigorous definition of "IC" (compared i.e. to Behe's or even Miller's) would help. I am not sure that such exists formally in the literature and of course, I wouldn't want to engage in the dreaded "independent research" in Wikipedia, but presumably this pursuit is OK on Talk Pages if it advances the article.
• Second, "IC" isn't "opposed" to anything because "IC" is not a theory, nor does it (like its cousin ID) claim to be. IC is simply a concept, that exists (qua concept) independently of any evolutionary debate, of course, and independently of any theory of evolution. IC (as a purely logical concept) says this:

• 1. Conceive of a "system" S (I leave aside the definition of this slippery term here so let's just use an intuitive approach) that performs a certain defined function (call that function F). NB: Not clear whether IC (as articulated by ID) requires that F be unique, i.e. that S performs only F and no other function; i.e. must we also consider exaptation?
• 2. Now conceive of the various "components" (C1, C2...Cn) (let's ignore for now whether these must be"elemental" components or whether another system S2 might itself count as a "component" of S, i.e whether you can have a non-elemental "component" that itself is made up of other components) that make up S and whose interaction and cooperation define S and enable it to perform F.
• 3. Def1: The system S is said to be inherently complex (i.e. it has the property or attribute of being "inherently complex") just in case the removal of any component Cx "disables" the system, i.e. prevents it from performing F. NB: I take this to be Behe's IC definition, even though it may be clear that the particular Cx was not, in the context of constructing S, added last.
• NB: This is Behe's definition as best I can parse it. Since it's just conceptual word play at this stage, other definitions can be formulated. E.g., a "stronger" (if that's the word) and recursive definition Def2 can be created by adding condition 2A, to stipulate that if (a) any component C1, C2..Cn is itself a subsystem (S2) with different function F2, and (b) S2 is "IC", then S is necessarily "IC" (with IC construed here either recursively or in the more fundamental sense of Def1, the "base" definition).

• Third, the "concept" defined above is neutral on the question of whether IC systems actually exist or not (i.e. in the empirical world as opposed to just in your fertile imagination), just as your idea of the "perfect island" is neutral on the question of whether such an island actually exists on Planet Earth (note: it's probably Bermuda though). In particular, the concept is neutral on the question of whether such IC systems exist in organisms or of whether some organism itself, conceived as a system, is IC.
• Fourth, ID (as best I understand Behe anyway as an ID proponent) makes the following claim:

• 1. IC can be adequately defined and understood as a conceptual matter. (Purely a conceptual and definitional matter)
• 2. IC systems exist in organisms.(Claim of empirical fact)
• 3. Darwin's theory (as currently understood in the neo-Darwinian sense and whether characterized as "natural selection" or "evolution" or "descent by (gradual or as you say bit-by-bit) modification" {his own favorite term}) cannot account for fact 2 above. (Proposed theorem). The ID/IC proof of the theorem is:

• 1. Use Def1 (it's simpler and your mind will explode if you use Def2 straight away, and it really doesn't matter in the end) (Heuristic)
• 2. Each component C1, C2...Cn of the IC system S is elemental, i.e. no such component is itself another system (From Def1)
• 3. Each such component must have a "survival value" because otherwise it would fail to be selected (Alleged to be an inevitable consequence of Darwinism)
• 4. Each such survival value must be other than the performance of F (Definition of IC)
• 5. For a complex S, with many components (n is "large"), the combination of 3 and 4 is very unlikely (Mathematical intuition)
• 6. Evolution by gradual modification (Darwinism) is hence very unlikely (Logical inference from the foregoing)
• 7. Since the only possible explanations are Darwinism and ID, it follows that the explanation must be ID (Assumption of exactly two explanatory models). {Of course, an advocate can omit 7 if the only intent is to refute Darwinism rather than to, more forcibly, establish ID).

• While it's true that ID proponents would challenge any naturalistic alternatives to Darwinism, as you suggest, the fact is that it just isn't a fighting issue now, mainly because the Darwinian view (with or without "enhancements" like facilitated variation) is the scientific consensus. The ID argument based on IC (as constructed above) in any case only purports to work against Darwinism, however construed, not against just any arbitrary naturalistic explanation.

• Tom, maybe that is responsive to your point. I'll be happy to discuss on your Talk Page if you want to move this elsewhere. SixPurpleFish (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Arch" Analogy

Isn't the argument that irreducible complexity doesn't work because an arch can collapse with the removal of one brick foolish because you could take bricks off the top without hurting anything? -Dah Cheese

This is intended to be a report on what the arguments are, rather than an evaluation on how good they are. But I think that we can overdo that, if an argument has no plausibility at all. In the case of the arch analogy, there are some reasons to think that it might be at least worth mentioning. For one thing, it does seem to have some plausibility, for we can reduce the arch to an irreducible minimum, by removing bricks one-by-one until we have an arch where no more bricks can be removed without collapse. And, on the biology side, I'm sure that - for example - some molecules can be removed from a flagellum, just that the claim is that there is some irreducible minimum. So, I think, the parallel between the arch and the biological examples holds, at least at first glance, unless there is something in the literature which can be cited in this article. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion in archive 3 on this matter:

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/Archive 2#Abiogenesis and biochemistry).--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)

--Jorfer (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve, and Behe's examples are considered to constitute an argument from ignorance"

I ask whether it would be appropriate to distinguish three points:

1. Such systems can evolve 2. Such systems have evolved 3. The argument from ignorance

Under (1), one can point to analogies such as the natural arch, which shows that a step-by-step process can lead to a situation in which all the pieces are necessary to the result. Under (2), one can point to fossil intermediates which show that the mammalian middle-ear ossicles did, in fact, have intermediate forms. Under (3), one can show that there are possibilities other than standard biological evolution and intelligent design - oh, say, Lamarckian evolution or elan vital.

I think that this would be, if anything, less argumentative than saying "scientists have shown". TomS TDotO (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement is utterly, completely uncontroversial and is supported by the reference I took from inside the article. --TS 15:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

PNAS paper on "reducible complexity"

• Clements, Abigail (2009). "The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (37): 15791–15795. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908264106. Retrieved 2009-09-18. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Would be a good reference for this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mousetrap

Suggest for the end of the lede some version of this phrase, modify as you please: "Scientists often find fault with the examples given by proponents of irreducible complexity, particularly the famous example of the mousetrap;..." There are sources for it, but I have not got time to find them all. Thank you. Anarchangel (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat biased?

To me, it seems that this article is somewhat biased. I have done vast research on this topic, and Behe has acceptably countered every criticism that I have heard of. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?70.181.168.148 (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I doubt it, but provide WP:RS making the case.--Filll (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Personal opinion and original research count for nothing in wikipedia. It is what you can verify from reliable sources that counts.
2. What we have seen to date is that Behe wanders repeatedly into areas outside his expertise, and has been shown by genuine experts in these fields to have, at best, a very superficial understanding of them, insufficient to support the far-fetched claims he makes in these fields, which claims have, without exception, been debunked. The unequivocal scientific consensus, including from Behe's own department, is that irreducible complexity is without any scientific merit. Per, WP:DUE, this article will continue to give this considerable weight, as the majority viewpoint.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well if it's so "debunked," then why is that the first link in Wiki Project Intelligent Design? If truly no one believes it anymore, I don't see why that should be used as one of the main Intelligent Design arguments on Wikipedia. 70.181.168.148 (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because both major ID arguments have been debunked -- Irreducible complexity & Specified complexity. ID is pseudoscience based upon such debunked arguments. There are of course people who believe in it -- just like there are people who believe in astrology, homeopathy and any number of other pseudoscientific ideas. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. However, Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. And these ideas, although possibly debunked, are notable. And for the benefit of our readers, we include them all and the relevant information about them. Many debunked ideas like caloric theory have articles on Wikipedia. Some are interesting. Some are of historic interest. Some are necessary to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia, described in WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you Filll. That clarifies a lot, however I am still confused as to why two supposedly "debunked" topics are the first two links on the Wiki Project ID page. Surely, we could move them down to the bottom and give the more important topics of the fined-tuned universe and whatnot some light? I'm sorry, and I do not mean to have "general discussion on the article's topic," but it seems to me that the article and even the Wiki Project is still biased against ID. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral? Thanks, and sorry for my confusion. from 70.181.168.148 (for some reason my IP switched, now I'm a different IP, but im still the person known as 70.181.168.148.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.160.116 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the order is somewhat arbitrary on that page. But Hrafn is the gentleman who manages the page mainly, so maybe he will discuss it with you. But honestly it is sort of irrelevant. That project page is just to organize ourselves internally, and really confers no other importance or information based on ordering etc.--Filll (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Third party here. You are throwing out the evidence used by the ID group but letting the anti-ID group write completely bias articles. How is this neutral? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.206.196 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not understand WP. The personal stance of those writing the articles does not matter. The article must be written according to NPOV. And by NPOV, the mainstream view must be dominant. And ID is purported to be science, and the mainstream view of ID is that it is nonsense at best.--Filll (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't seem to understand. NPOV doesn't mean "majority" rules, it means that you write it from a non-bias perspective. Would it be NPOV in the south during the 1800's to write that African Americans are an inferrior race? According to your definition the answer would be yes. Perhaps I don't understand WP, perhaps WP is far too focused on being a majority rules series of articles then a fact-based dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.206.196 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If the majority of reliable, independently published sources sources said that in 1800, then yes that is exactly what Wikipedia would have reported. If there was dissent, Wikipedia, being like all encyclopedias a tertiary source, would report on the dissent in appropriate proportion. In 100 years, there will undoubtedly be things that future readers will look at in wonder. Nevertheless, this is what we know as best we know it today. Rossami (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect that in 1800, the vast majority of mainstream reliable sources would state that African Americans were an inferior race. And therefore, according to NPOV, in 1800 Wikipedia would report exactly that. Now there was a minority movement that disagree with that position, and that would be noted, but only in the proportion of their prominence. So suppose that 80% of the reliable sources said blacks are an inferior race in 1800, and 20% said that blacks were not an inferior race. About 80% of the Wikipedia content would then state what 80% of the reliable sources said, that blacks are an inferior race.

See, Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. It is not a "fact-based encyclopedia" but a "source-based encyclopedia". If the sources do not have facts in them, then that is what we will report anyway. It is not up to Wikipedia to second guess these sources and state something different. There are other Wikis for that, but Wikipedia is not one of them.--Filll (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, around the 1860s the creationist Louis Agassiz argued that African Americans were an inferior species and thus supported slavery, while Charles Darwin argued that humanity was all one species, and vigourously opposed slavery. Sometimes reality is biased, no matter how much ID proponents try to hide from it. .. dave souza, talk 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you look in mainstream encyclopediae in 1800, most of them did not have great things to say about African Americans I dare say. And the same religious sects now that are most heavily creationist today, like Pentecostals and Baptists, were the most heavily racist and in favor of slavery in the 1800s. They argued based on the biblical story of Ham that blacks are inferior and should be slaves. The sects like Unitarians and Quakers that opposed slavery are those that accept evolution today. So...--Filll (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Even the discussion on this article is trying to smear creationists as racist?! This article is ridiculously biased and gives far too much author opinion. Yet another partizan ruining Wikipedia as an academic source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.213.130 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another unsigned comment from someone evidently with an apparently strong opinion... Maybe that is what partly "ruins Wikipedia"! Just how difficult is logging in and finding the tilda key on a computer keyboard?!Jimjamjak (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The very suggestion that this theory has been "debunked" because an opposing argument has been offered displays inherent bias. That the theory is considered a "minor theory" is nothing more than a reflection of an entire field of scientists on both sides of the issue that mistake worldview for logic and metaphysics for astrophysics. WP's perspective on the "unbiased" issue is a deceptive misnomer. Restating the party line is not truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Savingedmund (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 September 2009

Thank you for repeating that party line, think we've heard it before: see the responses above, and WP:TALK for the purpose of this page which is NOT debating the topic. Do please sign your posts in future. . dave souza, talk 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very new to contributing to Wikipedia. I therefore do not know if my comment here is according to the standards--excuse me. I felt a need to comment on the somewhat embarrassing tone of this article. I was under the impression that the standard would be much less doctrinaire and emotional. I think this article does little to advance the credibility of Wikipedia. There seems to be little desire to provide a complete analysis--pro and con--of the subject. That's a shame. hsteach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsteach (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC) == Silly shellfish ==

Could people please stop edit-warring over octopuses/octopi -- according to Merriam-Webster both are correct. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yesh, you're being very shellfish. Thish ish a team effort. -- Ec5618 (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Any more excruciating mollusc puns from you & we'll all clam up. :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to remind everyone Wikipedia isn't a talk forum. Thanks.Mr2b (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Major proponent, originator, popularizer

I was about to edit the description of Behe as "originator" of the concept to say "popularizer", but I thought I'd mention it here first. After all, it wasn't even unknown among creationists of the late 20th century. Behe's contribution seems to be restricted to drawing attention to the (old) concept and giving it the name "irreducible complexity". If no one comes up with a better description than "popularizer" (or, at least, an argument against it), I'll make the change. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'first proponent of it under this name' might be a better description then. He did more than simply 'popularise' the argument -- even if the ideas wasn't completely original, he crystallised it into a recognisable concept. I would note that the previous arguments on the topic are characterised as 'Forerunners' not 'Early examples of irreducible complexity arguments'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Some other problems of irreducible complexity

There are some other arguments I've heard which I wish someone could unearth (I can't remember exactly where I saw them). One characterizes irreducible complexity as a problem that God should be able to overcome, in that if God is all powerful then He should be able to create a world in which the outcome is directly identical to ours but without having to tinker with it to have it turn out that way. If not, then its not all-powerful. If so, then it must be able to design a world where irreducible complexity doesn't stop molecules from forming complex life unaided, and so irreducible complexity must be possible to overcome. Another is the point that there is no irreducible complexity in the differentiation of ape and man, so once higher levels of evolution are admitted the biggest objection to evolution (man descending from apes) is basically conceded. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The first argument sounds a lot like Omnipotence paradox, which is philosophy and not my area of expertise. Regardless, IC purposely makes no claims about the supernatural so the nature of God really has no place in this article. The second argument actually is meaningless since humans are apes and always have been. Since apparently Behe is the only scientist who is able to spot IC, there may or may not be examples in primate speciation. Still, IC is not meant to disprove any of the mechanisms proposed by real biologists, only that their may be others as well. Evolution of primates can still occur even if systems are IC. I hope that helps. StephenPCook (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A paradox indeed -- in the first case it seems that IC then disproves our existence since it poses a problem even God can't overcome. So, evolution alone can't make us exist and there is no omnipotent God to do it either. Torquemama007 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think IC has much to do with the question of omnipotence. However, unfortunately this is not the venue to discuss it, see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK. Are there any specific (and sourced) changes to the article we could discuss instead? Gabbe (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything outside of blogs and forums. Sorry. Torquemama007 (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken Links

Links 44, 64, and 65 are broken and do not lead to what they are supposed to. 173.2.116.173 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in - this is me. Higgyrun3 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've found updated links for these source articles – journal access or subscription may be needed. . . dave souza, talk 17:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Discoverer

An IP inserted (under "Definitions"): "Although Wikipedia states that Hermann_Joseph_Muller discovered irreducible complexity, t...". Apart from the self referentiality (to WP), I dislike the word "discovered" (which also appears in the linked article). If a reference is to be made then I would suggest "invented" be used instead. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is an ambiguity in the opening to this article, "The term "irreducible complexity" was originally defined by Behe as ...". I had thought that it meant something like this: The precise wording of the expression "irreducible complexity" was introduced by Behe, and he used it to mean such-and-such. It seems that others take it, rather, to mean something like: The concept referred to by "irreducible complexity" was first analyzed by Behe, that concept being such-and-such. This second reading is likely to give rise to confusion when the reader comes across the discussion of the "Forerunners", talking about several writers who, long before Behe, discussed a very similar concept (albeit it was only more recently brought up in the context of evolution, but even there, Behe wasn't the first). Am I correct? If so, shouldn't the opening to the article be reworded to avoid ambiguity and be clearer? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the "definitions" section, I've changed the above wording to "The term "irreducible complexity" was coined by Behe, who defined it as applying to:", and modified the lead to "Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex...." Hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Learned Nothing

I came here to learn more about ID for a research paper and learned nothing despite arguments against it. Whereas it is certainly important to have arguments against ID (since the debate is highly controversial), it is not necessary to have a rebuttal to every ID claim the next sentence afterward. This article is obviously slanted away from even objectively informing people what ID even is. Pathetic...Mr2b (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you learnt something elsewhere, your suggestions for article improvement will be welcome. As the layout and weight given to ID arguments is determined by policies linked under Article policies in the second box at the top of this page, it will be constructive if you could make the case for proposals here first rather than starting by making any drastic changes to the article. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a blatantly clear slant here, and it is being handled the same way as the opposition to anything ID related is handled. The sheer number of people dissenting on this talk page speaks as to the soul of wikipedia, "policies" and your interpretation of them be damned. From the text of one of the "WP:RS" - "ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." How can "ID" (A hypothesis) make a "negative attack" on another hypothesis (whatever the strengths of either).

The greatest evidence for the blatant slant is apparent in the very last line of the lead-in... "which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]" not only speaking for "the scientific community" (which thankfully, is still full of people asking questions, regardless of the popularity it gives them) but then it CITES the following: ""True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design ... use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'" So, now an editorial opinion qualifies as a WP:RS? And then the icing on this cake is where this opinion comes from: Shulman, Seth (2006). Undermining science: suppression and distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 13. - This man (out of Berkeley.) is a journalist and author. Not a scientist of any order. He has written a politically charged anti-Bush book (in 2004, no less) and it received critical acclaim. From the anti-Bush crowd (which, interestingly enough, includes some scientists). This book was endorsed by some scientists (~12,000... no small number by any means, although their credentials aren't listed) as a whole, not specifically because a journalist uses derogatory remarks against we he terms "psuedoscience" (which is the new byword for anything that challenges the establishment). The fact alone that this joke of a WP:RS stands on this page is testament to those rabidly defending the impartiality of this article.

Next up "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." AGAIN "most members" yet this number is never cited.

Every single WP:RS used is a snide and derisive review on something that more than a few people are interested in. How about some cold, hard, scientific refutation of IC instead of this liberal vs conservative tripe?

I am no scientist. But, like the original poster, I came here to LEARN about "IC". Instead, I found a wikipedia article that has surpassed any previous bias I have experienced on here.

And please, don't insult me with "if you can make the article better..." maybe ID/IC *IS* crap, you don't have to debase Wikipedia by devoting a page to slandering it while masquerading as information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archon888 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 April 2010

The problem is that all scientists currently working in biology and medicine know that the evolutionary explanation for life is correct. Further, all "irreducible complexity" scenarios have been shown to be compatible with evolution (that is, the irreducible complexity argument is wrong). Accordingly, there are few scientists willing to waste time publishing papers pointing out the IC errors, just as there are no suitably qualified scientists publishing papers saying it is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Total utter garbage. I know for a fact that this is not only just wrong, but quite considerably off the mark. This page is of poor quality, and extremely one-sided, and now we know why. It is edited by religious zealots worshiping at the altar of Darwinian evolution. Though my opinion on the creationist versus darwinist debate was initially neutral, nonsense such as this almost makes me happy that the phylogenetic tree is dying a painful death in the light of accruing genomic sequencing data. 82.132.248.167 (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, what source did you use to come up with the bogus statement that "'all' scientists currently working in biology and medicine know that the evolutionary explanation for life is correct?" It is an absurd statement on two levels. First, it is empirically false. The Discovery Institute maintains a list of Ph. D. level scientists who have expressed skepticism of the idea that darwinian evolution can explain the complexity of life. The statement reads "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Your statement is also absurd on an a priori level. Scientific methodology does not produce certainty. There is not a single scientist on earth that knows that the neo-darwinian explanation is the "correct" one. Scientists think certain things based on their interpretation of available evidence. And their interpretations aren't even based on available evidence, only on whatever evidence they themselves are privy to. Snoopydaniels (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

@Snoopy There are variety of issues with the DI list. There's a whole article on it, in fact. For one, the majority of those listed are not scientists, or active in any field related to biology. Secondly, the statement is not an objection to evolution, but an expression of skepticism. As a result, some of those on the list signed under a false pretense, and their subsequent requests to be removed have been ignored by the DI. Thirdly, the number of signatures (even in full) is minuscule. Compare to, say, Project Steve. The conclusion that the DI draws from this list -- that there is doubt or debate within the scientific community -- is not only a false one, but in fact their data shows quite the opposite; If this is the best that the largest, and most luxuriously funded proponent of ID can do, there very clearly isn't any doubt within science. Jess_talk|_edits 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jess Your above paragraph is completely irrelevant. The Dissent from Darwin list, even if all of your criticisms were true and supported by reliable sources (and they are not), demonstrates Johnuniq's statement from above to be false. Snoopydaniels (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

@Snoopy: you know what to do. Bring us your reliable sources. If, as you suggest, there really is significant dissent within the scientific community, than it should have produced an impact in the scientific literature. Given your certainty of this strong skepticism, finding this should not be a big ask. Further, rather than make sweeping statements about this article, can you please suggest specific changes you'd like to make. --PLUMBAGO 12:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

@Snoopy I'd echo Plumbago's reply. As well, I'd refer you again to the article on the DI list, which cites 61 sources. I do believe the Kitzmiller v Dover case covers this sort of thing as well, (it at least covers why the DI is a questionable source), and I've linked you to that twice now. I didn't go out of my way to look up everything I linked you to just for the fun of it. I was hoping you'd actually read them. If you can find reliable sources which meet WP:RS, then we can talk about changing the article. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Bejamin Wiker & Jonathan Witt Eye Rebuttal

In A Meaningful World Benjamin Wiker & Jonathan Witt recognize the scientific explanation for the evolution of the eye given here, but their rebuttal is different from Behe's as it focuses on the macro:

This problem cannot be avoided by asserting that the eye can be built up gradually from a single patch of light-sensitive skin through various stages, slowly reaching the complexity of the vertebrate eye. Why? If you are going to make the case for the evolution of the vertebrate eye or even a light-sensitive patch of skin, the argument must be made in regard to the entire complexity of the living organism, at least insofar as that complexity supports vision (even in the least complex form). For this reason, the debate shouldn't be about the evolution of the eye, but about the evolution of vision, and vision is always the vision of some particular kind of living animal, a living whole whole in which the integrated activity and experience of seeing, even in its simplest form, can take place. (p. 44)

Does anyone have a reason this should not be mentioned along Behe's rebuttal at the end of the eye section? Also, the "although the photoceptor reaction is roughly analogous to the independently evolved light reaction used by plants in photosynthesis" rebuttal to his rebuttal is not a valid one as Behe would likely say that the plant photoreceptor is irreducibly complex as well. I will remove that part until someone can source it or at least explain how that is a rebuttal.--Jorfer (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer used an argument about the impossibility (in his view) that natural selection could generate "co-operative" parts:"the relative powers of co-operative parts cannot be adjusted solely by survival of the fittest". It is not that Spencer was Lamarckian, but rather the particular argument involving "co-operative" parts, which seems to be very similar to the argument from "irreducible complexity". TomS TDotO (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Says who? This appears to be original research, and we really need a published source that has noticed this vague similarity and specifically refers to irreducible complexity. . . . dave souza, talk 13:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark Ridley,

"Coadapatation and the Inadequacy of Natural Selection", British Journal for the History of Science,volume 15 number 1 (March, 1982), pages 45-68, doi:10.1017/S0007087400018938:

"An older and more religious tradition of idealist thinkers were committed to the explanation of complex adaptive contrivances by intelligent design. ... Another line of thinkers, unified by the recurrent publications of Herbert Spencer, also saw coadaptation as a composed, irreducible whole, but sought to explain it by the inheritance of acquired characteristics." (pages 67-68)

I have to do a little more work before adding something appropriate to the article. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so that tells us what the "thinkers" saw, but still doesn't say much about Spencer. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to work up an accurate, brief description of Spencer's concept of "co-operative parts" used as an argument against the sufficiency of natural selection. Spencer wasn't given to terse descriptions (he spends about eight pages in "The Principles of Biology" describing it), and I thought that what I quoted was about as good as one can get, without going into something which is disproportionately long for an article on "irreducible complexity" - Ridley's article, which seems to me to be good, is 24 pages long.

TomS TDotO (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this variation on the quotation from Spencer would be better?

"We come now to Professor Weismann's endeavour to disprove my second thesis — that it is impossible to explain by natural selection alone the co-adaptation of co-operative parts. It is thirty years since this was set forth in "The Principles of Biology." In §166, I instanced the enormous horns of the extinct Irish elk, and contended that in this and in kindred cases, where for the efficient use of some one enlarged part many other parts have to be simultaneously enlarged, it is out of the question to suppose that they can have all spontaneously varied in the required proportions."

"Weismannism Once More", The Contemporary Review, 1894 (reprinted in "The Works of Herbert Spencer", 1891, volume 17), pages 592-608; quotation from page 594.

TomS TDotO (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of additional secondary sources that I have, which I think would be excessive to cite in the main article, but are too good to just throw away, so perhaps you will excuse me if I quote them here.

"Against selection itself Spencer used an argument that had considerable force when measured against the pregenetical selection theory ... . He pointed out that when a new structure evolved, all the rest of the body would have to accommodate the new development. Thus a series of variations would be required to adjust the overall structure in a manner correlated to the new organ. What would be the chance of all these variations appearing together at the right time, if the species had to depend on random variation? Selection might explain the changes in a single organ, but not an integrated transmutation of the whole body."

Page 245 of Peter J. Bowler (1984). Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-04880-6.

"Spencer ... had invested his major defense of Lamarck in the phenomenon of co-adaptation. How could natural selection, working separately on each trait, produce an intricate coordination of numerous parts, all changing in the same direction?"

Page 218Stephen Jay Gould (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.

TomS TDotO (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, they're interesting but differ significantly in that Spencer sees them as implying the inheritance of acquired characteristics, a process Darwin also thought was occurring, while the whole point of "irreducible complexity" is that Goddunnit cos natural processes couldn't. So, not really the same thing. . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading your addition, it looks ok to me. . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

After reading the article, and the above comments, I believe that it is clear to anybody on either side that some sort of discussion needs to take place to get the article to retract it's claws (Just a bit). It reads like a criticism and not a neutral article. I'm certain that the language can be softened just a tad-bit, so it reads more professionally. --209.112.222.8 (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, could you please make specific proposals with sources supporting any changes. Also note that neutrality means giving proportionate weight to scientific views, and not giving undue credence to pseudoscience. Thanks, dave souza, talk 21:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A small minority of people will always see this and many other articles as biased, but we have to go with the weight of scientific evidence.--Charles (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What is Science anyway?

To say that "Irreducible complexity (IC) is a nonscientific argument..." begs the question "What is science?". Have we forgotten that Philosophy is the queen of all sciences - she is independent of all other sciences and all other sciences are governed and protecdted by her! At the top of Phiosophy stands metaphysics - Logic follows. Is the auther in search of truth or is the author promoting an agenda? Does the author believe in absolute truth, like First Principles, or relative truth? In any case the author is using language, trying to convey concepts, that can only be anchored in and rely upon Philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.157.16 (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Science is the stuff which leads to progress: things like the research behind electronics, computers, the Internet, airplanes, medical procedures, and a bunch more. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It also generally follows the scientific method, is parsimonious, is falsifiable, etc. So yes, at a basic level, the argument of irreducible complexity is not scientific75.76.196.182 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@98.235 Wikipedia is not a forum. Please take your inquiries somewhere else. Thanks. Jess ^talk _cs 02:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

Look, although some editors are reverting content they see as unsourced or fringe, AND although these editors plainly state their POVs on their user pages; it still appears to be a WP:COI issue. It is disinenguous to say something is unsourced when plainly it contained inline citations. You can argue the quality of the sources, but they ARE there. Lying about a reversion while having a COI of your own, can cause undesirable reactions that we don't need. Please control your emotions and passions long enough to at least call something what it REALLY is and not what you want it to be. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 19:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about this edit? In it, substantial changes to 3 separate sections of the article are made, entirely changing the content and tone of the article, and only one source is provided, directly from the Discovery Institute. Furthermore, the user is edit warring with no discussion, which is against policy (and likely to get him blocked). If you want that info included, you need to make a case for it here and establish consensus first.

I would suggest reading WP:Fringe and WP:PSCI before you do, as they directly apply to this article and the proposed content. I would also recommend reading through WP:AGF, as suggesting that other users are lying is a personal attack, and likely to get you in trouble. Finally, while we're tacking on policy pages, you may wish to actually read WP:COI, as it doesn't apply in this case, and plainly states so in the guideline. Jess_talk|_edits 19:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies; let's say your edit summary was inaccurate then, happy? You said "unsourced" did you not? He provided sources, whether they were good ones or not. I mean I thought I saw some ref tags, or did I just see things? Maybe you should work on making your edit summary what it should be, hmmm? I think that would work. I've done an edit or two around here, so I think I should know. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, TFI, thought you meant my edit for a moment, the summary to which was unexplained promotion fringe views. As for the subsequent summary of Unsourced POV, that accurately describes the claims described immediately below, which are not supported by the sources. However, the poorly sourced apologia were removed at the same time, so arguably that should have been highlighted as Unsourced and poorly sourced POV. I'm sure you didn't mean to be disingenuous in suggesting that all the pov was sourced, and trust you will take great care in future to avoid making personal attacks by accusing other editors of lying instead of assuming good faith. . . dave souza, talk 16:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I will be careful, but any editor that comes into a controversial article (with huge personal opinions on their user page) and deletes content without a credible rationale or attempt at discussion should know the consequences of such an approach. The content added by the one editor appeared to be nothing more than attempt to be evenhanded, and did not even amount to strong disagreement with the existing content. People can play WP lawyer all they want, but that is not what WP is all about. If you don't want to be viewed as a censor, then it is an editor's duty to take extra care not to appear like one. The assumption of good faith has its limit as can be seen in vandalism warning rules. It also works both ways. You can't throw that up for everything. Peace. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@ The Founders Intent, please note that in addition to the points raised by Mann Jess, the changes reversed the meaning of statements properly attributed to sources: Barbara Forrest does not call IC a "scientific" argument, and it's not credible to claim that "the argument is one of several arguments proceeding from multiple disciplines in support of the theory of intelligent design, and is a subject of debate within the scientific community" on the basis of the cited source which is the Kitzmiller decision, see pp. 74–79. Regarding the ID proponents' claims, the primary sources cited are obviously questionable and are skewed to the fringe viewpoint, if any points are to be included they should be discussed by secondary sources giving the necessary context. . . dave souza, talk 08:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid this little discussion is my fault. I'm completely new to the complexities of Wikipedia community and I only realized after my second attempt to edit that such changes require discussion.

Here is as good a place as any to make my case. First, you are quite right that the original anonymous edit lacked proper sourcing. I got a bit ahead of myself with the editing and made a piecemeal change which was incomplete. My subsequent edits, however, had more than adequate citation considering how modest they were. The introduction at least, if not the entire article, is shamefully biased in favor of evolution. It presumes a monopoly on the very definition of what is scientific and what is not when the very nature of the scientific enterprise is the subject of philosophical inquiry to this day.

It is silly to argue that these edits violate WP:Fringe policies when the article itself is about what you would label as a fringe view. The goal of the article should be to present this "fringe" view as faithfully as possible, and the only way to do that is to go to its proponents, not its opponents. Certainly it involves presenting the counterarguments of its opponents, but it also involves presenting the counter-counter arguments such as, for example, in the case of Kenneth Miller's mouse trap argument. Behe and others have presented refutations of Miller, but none of these appear in the article. Instead, the author(s) sources are almost entirely from virulent evolutionists. This is akin to citing Karl Marx in an article about capitalism and dismissing Adam Smith's writings on the basis of his criticism. Of course evolutionists are going to say that irreducible complexity is not a scientific argument. It spares them the labor of actually having to refute it scientifically.

Even the outline and headings of the article are biased. The section titled "Response of the Scientific Community" presumes that intelligent design proponents are not part of that very community. Behe, Axe, Meyer, Wells and others are highly credentialed scientists who should be accorded every respect accorded to evolutionists. The section should be relabeled, "Response of Evolutionists" to reflect the fact that proponents of both Darwinian Evolution and ID are subsets of the scientific community, not that one is an "in" group and one is an "out" group. This isn't high school.

One of the most laughable sections of the article is when, while discussing the mouse trap argument, the author(s) state that "In an amusing example taken from his high school experience, Miller recalls that one of his classmates." There is nothing neutral about this statement. The word "amusing" has no place in an encyclopedia entry.

These are just a few examples. This article as it stands clearly violates WP:NPOV and makes a mockery of Wikipedia. I am not proposing that we remove evolutionist criticisms (although I think there are many statements in the article that are gross overstatements, such as "Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve"), but I am proposing that these be balanced with ID counterarguments. As much as evolutionists hate to admit it, there IS a scientific debate going on with respect to the idea of irreducible complexity, and it should be the purpose of this article to communicate this significant fact. Snoopydaniels (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopydaniels (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is yet another very alarming piece of evidence for evolution: Latest bacterial mutation emerged in India. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Snoopy. Thanks for taking the time to write out the reason for your changes. There's two things I'd like to respond to.

1. You appear to be saying that we should give ID proponents "the last word" because this is an article about ID. However, that's not what WP:Fringe or WP:Weight tell us to do. The article should include the full views of those proposing Irreducible complexity, and the main responses it has garnished, but we can't turn it into a debate. In the case of the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, for example, it is enough to say "Behe gave testimony to X, and the court responded that Y". This should seem reasonable in any other context. For instance, in the Flat Earth article, should we give "equal time", or "the last word" to modern proponents of a flat earth model? Clearly not. It should be sufficient to say "There are modern proponents of a flat earth model who believe X. Scientists disagree due to Y", and leave it at that. Indeed, this is consistent with WP:NPOV.
2. You also state that ID is a scientific theory, and is debated within the scientific community. However, this is not the case, as the Intelligent Design article illuminates. If you have some spare time, I would highly recommend reading through the Kitzmiller v Dover decision, particularly page 63 through 89. If you're still interested, this article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation provides further insight into the "debate", some of its history, and those defending it.

I should note now that it is uncommon to have lengthy conversations about the article's content on talk pages per WP:NOTFORUM, but I'd like to have at least offered you solid reasons for why we've settled on things the way they are. After reading through that material, if you're still interested in adding this content to the article, your best bet is to find reliable secondary sources which explicitly state what you have. (Particularly those not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, which has a history of lying, even under oath, making it a questionable source we cannot use). Since wikipedia is about verifiability, not fact, this will be instrumental to your case. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. If the discussion page isn't intended for discussion of the article's content then what is it for? I thought the whole point of the discussion page was for the community to suggest and discuss changes to an article's content before making them. Where would be a more appropriate forum for this discussion? Snoopydaniels (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Snoopy! I replied on your talk page with clarification and a few suggestions. Feel free to let me know if there's any more ambiguity! Jess_talk|_edits 19:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat biased? revisited

[ People kept on insisting on sprinkling comments throughout a three year old thread. This is proving to be more than a little unworkable, so I'm moving all these new comments to a new thread here & archiving the old thread. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC) ]

Is there a place on wiki that is intended for debates? No sarcasm intended. Sullyj4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

I wandered onto this article from a relatively neutral perspective and was immediately put off by the unprofessional tone, beginning with the very first sentence no less. Even undergraduates at least make some attempt to hide bias within their work. 81.159.219.248 (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that ID had arguments better than Sophistry and ignorance. -- Deus Ex MockinYa (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if my logic is flawed, and also if i do something inappropriate for Wikipedia, but the way i see it (and I've never been taught otherwise, I go to a christian school, so feel free to refute me) is that inter species evolution through natural selection doesn't make sense, because for new body parts to grow like a wing (for a crude example) loads more DNA information is required, and I don't see where that information would come from. Also, even if this was possible, Darwin states that the components of the wing would grow gradually, so until it was a fully working wing, it seems to me that it would just be a pointless deadweight, which would give the owner of the wing a disadvantage, therefore natural selection would remove it. Anyway, I'm just trying to gain a better understanding of the subject. Sullyj4 (talk)

Also please put in some way a year 10 could understand. Thanks Sullyj4 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Re your question above about debates on Wikipedia: no, there should be no general forum-like discussion on any Wikipedia pages, although of course occasionally there are brief conversations on matters that are not directly helpful towards improving an article. The main point is that article talk pages are not a place for editors to express their views on the topic – use a forum on another website for that. There are pages where questions can be asked, see WP:Reference desk. You might very well post your question on evolution at WP:Reference desk/Science. I will mention that you should not expect teachers who are expert in matters regarding a religion to necessarily be expert in matters regarding science. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks, although that last comment was probably not necessary. Sullyj4 (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment - yes, the "wing could grow gradually" would be problematic. But Darwin wrote that 150 years ago. You might get a sense of more modern ideas if you read Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community. Guettarda (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite the blustering, it doesnt change the fact that the word choice by the writer is extremely biased. I teach science to middle school students. I've always taught among other things, that science is the subject for the curious, the methodical and the obsessed. When asked by students what makes the Scientific method "scientific" I usually respond that its the careful recording of the data, constant repetition of tests and the absence (to one's best ability) of personal bias in drawing conclusions. I don't have a personal opinion either way on the topic-- it makes teaching evolution in school much easier that way-- but I find it rather insulting that the writers of this article feel the need to judge for me whether or not Behe's proposition is scientific or not. Doesn't seem very scientific. I would think, that when making such a profound assertion -- "debunked", "nonscientific argument", etc-- that there would at least be links or footnotes right at those words that gave weight to the opinion. Jhaerlyn (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC) 13th Oct, 2010 ... and just as an example ... I dont see anyone treating his VERY debunked ideas about the solar system with any denegration or judgments as to whether or not he was reaching beyond his expertise. [[3]]

woops -- I didnt see that you did in fact site someone saying that its debunked... how unfortunate they dont actually present arguments... I'm going to have to hunt down those now --- my curiosity is piqued! Jhaerlyn (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want a detailed debunking then I can recommend Young, Matt; Edis, Taner. Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-3872-6.. It has four whole chapters debunking Behe's claims from various angles (including the evolution of flight). But an encyclopaedia article is not the place for such detailed debunking -- at best it can hope to summarise experts' conclusions. Nor is this article the place for covering in detail what is covered in other articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with those who say the article is very biased. The point of the article seems to be more about casting doubt on irredcuible complexity than giving information about it. I hope someone can fix this soon. For a much better article, see Conservapedia's article on Irreducible Complexity

--72.145.188.221 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I find that Uncyclopedia's article is just as informative and slightly more helpful. -- Deus Ex MockinYa (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• You're joking, right? Have you actually looked at the credentials describing Conservapedia? They don't even pretend to attempt to be unbiased in their presentation.
  I think the source of confusion is that Wikipedia does not use "unbiased" to mean "everyone gets their say" or "every viewpoint is equally valid". Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia are, by definition, tertiary sources. They do not present new information or even writings about new information (those would be the primary and secondary sources, respectively). Encyclopedia authors attempt to synopsize the writings of others. In doing so, we deliberately reduce the level of detail and condense the arguments, knowing that a reader who truly needs all the gory detail will be reading the original sources and not the encyclopedia. Furthermore, because we are synopsizing (and because we are all pseudonymous editors with no functional way for any reader to check on any editor's academic credentials), we must be very careful to only synopsize and not to introduce our own opinions into the article. We are not content experts - we don't know the 'truth'.
  The act of synopsizing, however, means that some rules must be followed to ensure that the presentation is appropriately balanced. Wikipedia's rules for controversial topics are 1) to present the encyclopedia coverage in approximately the same proportion as the external sources cover it (that is, if you had nine journal articles saying the world was flat and one saying it was round, the encyclopedia article would be 90% weighted toward the flat-earth position) and 2) that the coverage of science articles is heavily weighted in favor of articles and sources that abide by the scientific method (that is, repeatable, measurable facts vetted through the peer-review process and published in reputable independent journals with the appropriate specialty credentials). So, yes, this article is biased. It is appropriately biased in favor of the weight of published, scientific opinion on the subject. Rossami (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Although I do believe that this article seriously needs to work on its tone, linking to conservapedia is completely ridiculous. That wiki, by name even, has a policy of putting everything of a conservative POV and therefore is not something to base any article on. The^FSAviator ( T • C ) 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Some examples of Conservapedia editing practices can be seen here.--Charles (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• A parallel online universe (subtitle: THE dodgiest place to go for information used to be Wikipedia.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I feel that there is intellectual dishonesty in the opening description of IC as pseudoscience. I undrestand that the represents the mainstream view, and that the mainstream adherents are the reliable sources being refered to. However, the term pseudoscience is not a scientific term. It adds nothing to the introductions and a pejorative (according to the Wikpedia article).

The mainstream view is that IC is incorrect, that it is false. Why don't you say, simply that IC is a false argument? You are hiding the word false in pseudoscience instead. That is better left in the mouth of the opponents not the reporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.20.96 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE#Pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. From what I read there, you *may* characterize the matter as pseudoscience in certain instances going with this Wiki rule. The description draws a line between pseudoscience and "Alternative theoretical formulations". I would like to propose that this line is not as clear as one would like, in general and in this specific instance.

The term, pseudoscience is a pseudoscientific term itself! There is no scientific basis to determine what is, and what isn't, except majority rule. Therefore it becomes a function of "group tnink" which itself is a sign of pseduoscience. The majority of scientists simply repeat what they understand, which for the majority is limited to a year or two of biology in this area.

The reality is that there is little evidence either way that demostrates the development (or evolution) of what are being called "irreducibly complex systems". Natural selection is currently a dotted line that is drawn from simple systems to more complex ones. That dotted line is called "science". Even though it isn't fully understood yet, it is believed that the process will be elucidated someday. Unlike the "theory of relativity" no scientific confirmation that tests this dotted line exists. So, while it is widely accepted, Natural Selection as the means of creating complex systems is mainly a matter of faith, not reason.

My point is not to argue the merits of NS or ID here, but only to suggest that the line between PS and alternative hypothesis is not that clear. The article on PS makes this clear. So while you *may* characterise the argument or position as PS, this rule does not mean that you *have to*. The rule that trumps all rules is that there "are no rules" : the spirit of neutrality of Wikipedia trumps all of them. Since you have the option not to characterize the argument, this position, in the interests of maintaining neutrality, you should not.

It is clear from the reading of the article that the IC position is held to be PS by the majority of the scientific establishment. That point is made in the first paragraph. Emphasising it does increase the bias, the non-neutrality of the article. This is a dangerous approach to take, just because you may - a slippery slope. Terming it simply "the position" or "the argument" is not putting it on the same level of acceptance as NS as the mechanism. It does put their scientific integrity on the same plane, which should be accorded to respected scientists who do hold this position.

I am not going to argue for the characterization of an alternative theortical formulation here. That is an argument that is long, complex, and beyond the scope of this forum (and my abilities most likely). If there is a place to make it, please let me know where? In the meantime, I propose removing any characterization of the argument, and letting the propoents and opponents speak for themselves in the article. To me, this is the prudent approach. Please think seriously about the issues that I am raising.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.23.195 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

1. That determining what is, and isn't science, lies outside the scope of science is pretty much definitional, so hardly brings disrepute on the activity.
2. "Pseudoscience" is defined as things that are not science, that pretend to be, not "majority rule".
3. "The reality is that there is" mountains of evidence on the evolution of "what are being called 'irreducibly complex systems'".
4. Irreducible complexity is not an "alternative hypothesis" -- it is simply an attempt to plug one's ears and pretend that evolution can't happen.
5. I would point out that the standard here is WP:RS opinion, not WP:OR argumentation (WP:NOTAFORUM). As long as the vast majority of opinion is unequivocally that IC lacks merit, this article will give WP:DUE weight to that opinion.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir,

IC does not pretend that evoution does not occur - and I am not an expert in IC - that is not my position here. The question relates to NS as a means of creating IC systems.

I can see from your home page writings that you are against the IC argument. As a person with a decided position you should recuse yourself from being a judge in this matter. I am certain that "mountains of evidence" were used to convict the wrongly accused hundreds of times. There were mountains right? Until DNA testing came along. The reality is that there is a lot of speculation, and positing, and little hard evidence.

In a situation where the contrary view is so weakly butressed as the NS mechanisim is as pertains to IC, it is even more important to be considerate of another viewpoint.

As mentioned, you do not *have* to characterise the position in any matter. You have not addressed the issue of why characterise it as PS in the first place? Why don't you simply say it is incorrect, misguided and baseless? Why do you not simply say this, when I am sure that the majority of RS believe this? Why choose the PS term, which has the weight of science but is not? Would calling it what you mean be stupid for an encylopedia to do. (Just as calling it PS also is.)

Therefore, regarldess of how the reliable sources feel, you should give additional leeway to this position, not precategorize it at all, because once again the rule is that neutrality trumps all the rules, including the one you are invoking. You do not see this because you are not neutral.

What is the appeal process since this case is closed in your mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.23.195 (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Just because I agree with the scientific consensus that ID (including IC) is WP:Complete bollocks is no reason to recuse myself.
2. Your 'certainty' is unsubstantiated, and thus worthless.
3. You keep saying "The reality is" and then making some ridiculous claim without a shred of scientific evidence or scientific credibility.
4. "In a situation where..." you have provided no evidence that "the NS mechanisim" is "so weakly butressed" as it "pertains to IC", I have no reason whatsoever to accept your premise.
5. I "do not *have* to" edit Wikipedia at all. but I may do so, and per WP:FRINGE I also may characterise IC as pseudoscience. In all likelihood however, it was not me who inserted that characterisation, and even if a accepted its removal, a WP:CONSENSUS would most probably arise to restore it.
6. "Why don't you simply say it is incorrect, misguided and baseless?" Because pseudoscience is the correct term of art, and because there is an article explaining the concept. And because we can and nobody has offered a good reason not to.
7. "precategorize" is both not a word, and would appear to be a meaningless claim/concept in this context. IC has been widely regarded as pseudoscience since before Wikipedia even existed, so its categorisation is decidedly ex post.
8. The first avenue of appeal would appear to be WP:FTN. After that, there is WP:Dispute resolution.

I would however suggest that you cease and desist using this article talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX, unless and until you have some WP:RSs to back up your claims, and your wish to change the article's language. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement in the lede that IC is a "pseudoscience" carries a single citation, so I attributed it to show who is saying it. Also, do all the sources in the "Response of the scientific community" actually discuss ID? If not, then it is synthesis to include them. Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The "single citation" in question was to a very prominent historian of the ID movement, who was only saying what dozens of other WP:RS have said. I've added a few more, and could probably find even more if it becomes an issue. But I really can't help seeing this as anything more than rather pointless WP:BATTLEFIELD skirmishing -- the view of IC contained in the opening sentence is the unequivocal opinion of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, so should be given WP:DUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition Cla, if you had read as far as the second sentence you would have found additional sources. This is simple disruption. Guettarda (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that this is not the place to debate the merits of the argument, therefore I did not. The devil is in the details, and there are too many to discuss here. Precategorize in this context refers to your categorization of the position as a fact rather than an opinion before stating the argument (get it sparky?). It is like introducing someone: meet John Doe, he's a real A-hole but you make up your own mind. You have prejudiced the rest of the article with it. I have no objection to stating the opinion of the majority, my objection is including it as a fact in the opening. The next reference to PS shows that opinion source of it clearly.

The Ecyclopedia Britannica), which actually has qualified editors, for example, introduces ID as ... "intelligent design (ID), argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer"." It does not say a pseduoscientific argument. It presents it as it is. Uncoloured. Unflavoured. Not precooked and predigested. Actually, to it's merit WP does also in its other references to ID and IC. It is in this article alone on the subject that its editors seem to violate common sense.

I am certain that you can pull WP rules out of your WP arse until the cows come home that buttress your position, but it doesn't change that at least in my opinion you are un-neccessarily slanting the tone of the article to confirm to the anti-IC position: therefore, IMHO it is not neutral. However, I will follow up on your WP references, come what may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.23.195 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:ASSERT: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."

As you have presented no WP:RSs to back up your claims, I have nothing further to say to you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The proponents of ID and IC claim that it is science but have not produced any peer reviewed scientific evidence to support this. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to define it as pseudoscience in the lead section. the lead just summarises what follows. The IP's arguments do not stack up and are full of assertions made without evidence.--Charles (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, we will await your references. I see nothing further to discuss in the interim. Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to maintain neutrality if ID had arguments better than Sophistry and ignorance. -- Deus Ex MockinYa (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)