Irreducible complexity

Irreducible Complexity (or Irreducible Complexity ) is a concept named by Michael Behe with which he tries to support intelligent design . He defines an irreducibly complex system as “a single system made up of several mating and cooperating parts that contribute to its basic function, the removal of any of the parts causing the system to cease to function effectively.” Using this concept, he makes the claim point out that the theory that life evolved through biological evolution is incomplete and inadequate, and that the intervention of an intelligent designer is necessary to explain the origins of the constructions and metabolic systems of living things .

He claims:

“An irreducibly complex system cannot be created in a direct way (ie by continuously improving the one and the same output function which continues to work through the same mechanism) by slight successive changes from less complex predecessor systems, because each predecessor to an irreducibly complex system on which a part is missing, is by definition inoperative. "

Distribution by Michael Behe

The concept was popularized by the biochemist and member of the Christian conservative Discovery Institute Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box (1996). In it he argues that there are biological systems that are irreducibly complex in his eyes, and thus tries to support intelligent design.

The concept is ignored or rejected by the scientific community because it makes use of the argument ad ignorantiam and because Behe ​​does not propose verifiable hypotheses that conflict with evolutionary theory. Hence, the irreducible complexity is seen by science theorists as an example of creationist pseudoscience , in which God has a kind of God of the gaps . In 2001 Michael Behe ​​himself admitted that his work contained a mistake and did not address the workings of natural selection.

Legal disputes

In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), Behe ​​swore under oath that his concept of complexity did not exclude the mechanisms of evolution and that there were no peer-reviewed articles in an independent specialist journal; this supports his argument that certain complex molecular structures are 'irreducibly complex'. As a result, the court concluded that intelligent design was not a science, but was essentially of a religious nature. In the course of the court hearing, Ken Miller 's assertions were emphatically contradicted; he showed that, in addition to systems that Behe ​​considers irreducibly complex, there are also simpler variants in nature that still work ( blood coagulation cascade ) or have another function ( flagellum ). In the new edition of “Darwin's Black Box”, Behe ​​takes a position on this in an additional epilogue, in his view not strictly following his definition of irreducible complexity. Miller would assume that none of the components of the system should have a function. But Behe ​​is of the opinion that this only has to be the case for the overall function of the system . Therefore Miller's argument (for parts of the structure a function can be shown in a different context) does not meet Behe's definition. Behe made it clear that for him the only possible refutation was the complete creation of the systems he specified under laboratory conditions.

Charles Darwin and the emergence of complex organs

Arguments against evolution, which start from the idea of ​​irreducible structures and the lack of possible functional intermediate stages, are very old, even if the definition used does not correspond to the current von Behe.

Charles Darwin already dealt with objections to his theory similar to those put forward today under the term "irreducible complexity". In the sixth chapter, Difficulties of Theory , of his book The Origin of Species , in which he mainly deals with potential difficulties in understanding his readers, he writes:

“If any compound organ could be demonstrated which could not possibly have been completed by numerous small successive modifications, my theory would inevitably collapse. However, I am unable to find such a case. "

- Charles Darwin

Even Darwin in the same chapter of his book ultimately rejected such objections as arguments out of a lack of imagination :

“He who will go thus far, ..., ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; ... "

“He who will go so far ... should not hesitate to go any further and admit that a structure could have been created as perfectly as an eagle's eye through natural selection, although in this case he does not know the transitional forms . His reason should gain the upper hand over his imagination; .. "

- Charles Darwin

He has also already pointed out that organs can have completely different functions in the course of their development.

Although called trailers as Sarfati as an example of irreducible complexity that is vertebrate eye as a classic example of a progression series evolved from simple built intermediate stages
(a) pigment spot
(b) Simple pigmented recess
(c) eye cup of abalone
(d) complicated lens eye of marine gastropods

criticism

Evolutionary biologists consider the concept to be unusable and biased: Anyone who hypothesizes that a system cannot evolve in several stages must not only know all possible "paths" of development, but must also be able to show that the system in question is subject to the boundary conditions that once prevailed could not reach functional maturity. This proof is still pending. In addition, it follows from Behe's definition of irreducibly complex characteristics only that the gradual emergence of the individual structural proteins of the characteristic cannot be positively selected in relation to the end function of the system. However, it would be a mistake to assume that irreducibly complex structures can only be built up in this "direct way" and not in several stages.

First of all, it is often not necessary to accumulate many independent mutations in order to rebuild a system cooperatively. On the contrary, many mutations change the whole system more or less. If some or most of the components of irreducibly complex features have already evolved in other contexts and come together in one step in such a way that a new function arises, the preconditions for the opponents of evolution would be irrelevant. In addition, features can also have a double function, so that the long-term positive evaluation of one function could bring the irreducible structure to functional maturity in a secondary way. How this could be done has been explained theoretically many times. B. from Orr; however, these authors provide no experimental evidence for this. The information theorist Suzanne Sadedin presented a simulation based on Behe's definition, in which geometric objects developed irreducibly complex properties after 6 and more generations. The objects evolved via the "detour" of more complex but reducible structures that were multifunctional.

The actual argumentation using "irreducible complexity" in microbiological systems is not new and specific to the intelligent design movement. In publications by the creationists Henry Morris (1974, 'Scientific Creationism') and Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen (1984, 'The Mystery of Life's Origin. Reassessing Current Theories'), essentially identical modes of argumentation can be found as in today's ID movement . This is seen by critics as one of several pieces of evidence that the intelligent design movement is part of creationism and that it is only attempting to distance itself from creationism for strategic reasons by using new terms for old arguments.

Significance in science and politics

So far, no irreducible complex structure could be detected, the formation of which could be demonstrably excluded by natural mechanisms. Here, however, the intelligent design advocates would have the burden of proof if they wanted to use the idea of ​​irreducibly complex structures as the starting point of the argument for a designer. In addition, there are also fundamental philosophical objections to this type of argument, such as David Hume's classic criticism of the design argument or his argument against a rationally justified belief in miracles . Therefore the argument for design with reference to irreducible complexity is considered epistemologically irrelevant.

The concept of irreducible complexity is a central content component of the structure of thought propagated under the catchphrase intelligent design , which is particularly widespread in the USA and receives political support there, especially from the religious right. Critics accuse the intelligent design movement of being a creationism veiled for tactical reasons and of hiding primarily religiously motivated goals behind an apparently scientific theory.

See also

• Emergence - irreducibility
• holism
• Essentialism

literature

• M. Neukamm: Evolution in the Crosshairs of Creationism: Darwin's Religious Opponents and Their Arguments. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009, ISBN 978-3-525-56941-2 .
• HA Orr: Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again). In: Boston Review. 21 (6), 1996, pp. 28-31.
• M. Neukamm: Why the intelligent design theory cannot convince scientifically. In: MIZ. 33 (3), 2004, pp. 14-19.
• M. Rammerstorfer: Just an illusion? Biology and design. Tectum Verlag, 2006, ISBN 3-8288-9117-9 .
• MJ Behe: Darwin's Black Box: Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The Free Press, 1996, ISBN 0-684-82754-9 . (German translation: Darwin's Black Box: biochemical objections to the theory of evolution. Resch Verlag, 2007, ISBN 978-3-935197-54-0 )

swell

1. ↑ Michael J. Behe: Darwin's Black Box. P. 39.
2. ↑ Michael Behe: Reply to My Critics. (PDF; 139 kB). 2001, p. 695.
3. ↑ Michael Behe: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science. 2005, p. 88.
4. ^ "Intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 6: Conclusion, section H.
5. ^ Afterword - Ten Years Later. In: Michael Behe: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. 2006, pp. 255-272.
6. ↑ C. Darvin, H. Schmidt, JV Carus (ed.): The emergence of the species. Leipzig 1884, p. 105.
7. ^ C. Darwin: On the Origin of Species. 1859, facsimile edition, Harvard Univ. Press, p. 188.
8. ↑ Orr 1996, Neukamm 2004.
9. ↑ Suzanne Sadedin: A simple model for the evolution of irreducible complexity. ( Memento of April 14, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 170 kB). Clayton School of Information Technology, Monash University.
10. ^ B. Forrest, PR Gross: Creationism's Trojan Horse, The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford University Press, 2004, ISBN 0-19-515742-7 .
11. ↑ David Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. ( Memento of the original from June 24, 2018 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
12. ↑ David Hume: Inquiry into the Human Mind, X. On Miracles.

Web links

Pages from representatives

• Reinhard Junker : Irreducible Complexity. (PDF; 171 kB). at genesisnet.info
• Markus Rammerstorfer: Minor explanation difficulties? Essay on IC.

Pages from critics

• Criticism of Macroevolution: The Argument of Irreducible Complexity. From: M. Neukamm (Ed.): Evolution in the crosshairs of creationism. Darwin's Religious Opponents and Their Arguments. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2009, pp. 212–238. (PDF, 528 kB).