Irreducible complexity means that a complex organ like an eye cannot function without even one of its parts. According to Darwin's theory the changes are very subtle and happen over long periods of time. If this is true, a complex organ cannot evolve because it will not function for several billions of years while evolving to a certain goal (the fully formed organ).
The mistake "irreducible complexity" people make is to imagine the modern human eye, then assume that according to evolution the previous version of it, seen in some ancestor of ours has an eye *exactly* like the one we have now, except missing a part. Of course THAT is ridiculous because such an eye could not function, so it's a good thing evolution doesn't actually make that claim!
Richard Dawkins actually goes over the eye in great detail to show how it could have evolved (You can watch, rather than read, the explanation in "Growing Up In the Universe"). Basically there's no reason to think the eye disproves evolution, none whatsoever. It is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of what the theory of evolution says. The problem is the people who keep pushing this line of poppycock in the media and in the books and through their "institutes" have seen this explanation by now, and are clearly intelligent enough to understand it, so I can only assume they are dishonest shits for continuing to use this example. I am more charitable to the folks like you who have assumed these people are honestly representing evolution. But I'll say it again, in a different way: IF the theory of evolution actually said what they claimed it said THEN I would be the first to argue against it.)
But you will disagree automatically. Okay, I'm gonna bring in physics then - Darwin's theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that every system left on its own tends to disorder. And this is a law, not simply a theory. This contradiction is admitted by evolutionist scientists.
"Evolutionist Scientists" would in fact point out the at the second law applies to closed systems, ones which receive no energy input. and also output no energy. No living being is a closed system, if, say, an animal were, it would die as soon as it consumed the oxygen in its bloodstream and/or the food in its stomach. So by your logic there is a contradiction between the fact that you are alive, and the second law of thermodynamics. FORTUNATELY, we aren't closed systems. And neither is the biosphere (i.e., the sum total of all the living organisms on earth), it gets enormous inputs of energy from the sun, constantly, and radiates waste heat into space.
Again this has been told to the ID "intelligentsia" over and over again, and they are almost certainly smart enough to understand this explanation... yet they keep repeating it, because they are dishonest shits.
Liars for Jesus, and you've bought it, hook line and sinker.
SteveInCO
The mistake "irreducible complexity" people make is to imagine the modern human eye, then assume that according to evolution the previous version of it, seen in some ancestor of ours has an eye *exactly* like the one we have now, except missing a part. Of course THAT is ridiculous because such an eye could not function, so it's a good thing evolution doesn't actually make that claim!
Richard Dawkins actually goes over the eye in great detail to show how it could have evolved (You can watch, rather than read, the explanation in "Growing Up In the Universe"). Basically there's no reason to think the eye disproves evolution, none whatsoever. It is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of what the theory of evolution says. The problem is the people who keep pushing this line of poppycock in the media and in the books and through their "institutes" have seen this explanation by now, and are clearly intelligent enough to understand it, so I can only assume they are dishonest shits for continuing to use this example. I am more charitable to the folks like you who have assumed these people are honestly representing evolution. But I'll say it again, in a different way: IF the theory of evolution actually said what they claimed it said THEN I would be the first to argue against it.)
"Evolutionist Scientists" would in fact point out the at the second law applies to closed systems, ones which receive no energy input. and also output no energy. No living being is a closed system, if, say, an animal were, it would die as soon as it consumed the oxygen in its bloodstream and/or the food in its stomach. So by your logic there is a contradiction between the fact that you are alive, and the second law of thermodynamics. FORTUNATELY, we aren't closed systems. And neither is the biosphere (i.e., the sum total of all the living organisms on earth), it gets enormous inputs of energy from the sun, constantly, and radiates waste heat into space.
Again this has been told to the ID "intelligentsia" over and over again, and they are almost certainly smart enough to understand this explanation... yet they keep repeating it, because they are dishonest shits.
Liars for Jesus, and you've bought it, hook line and sinker.Feb 27
Simon Paynton
I have no gods but Jedward.
Mar 1
Simon Paynton
Mar 1