Reducible Complexity

Dear Professor Behe, your concept of irreducible complexity is fundamentally flawed, and for one critical reason, which I shall soon demonstrate.  Behe claims that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, therefore it is a creation, and therefore it needs a creator.  He provides the example that a mousetrap needs all its parts in order to function as a mousetrap.  This sounds reasonable, right?  Nope.  Not a bloody chance in hell.

Yes, the bacterial flagellum is a complex system.  But the major flaw here is that Behe assumes, possibly unwittingly, that a structure cannot evolve for separate purposes.  You might ask, what good is having only the spring of the mousetrap?  And the answer to this is that it could serve other functions.  In light of this, the whole irriducible complexity claim falls into pieces, because every small component of the flagellum could have evolved for different purposes, as real scientists have demonstrated.

Of course, this is as far as I can go to explain why irreducible complexity is non-sense.  If you really want to see some real pwnage then click here — who wouldn’t want to see a creationist get pwned?  After all, they really ask for it, with all the lies and non-sense they come up with on a regular basis.  However, I must admit that irreducible complexity is one of the best creationist arguments I’ve ever heard; the other good one being the peanut butter abiogenesis.  Good on you, Professor Behe.

Reducible Complexity

Time also for an ad hominem attack.

“The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”

– Lehigh University, Department of Biological Sciences