The Debate over the Plausibility of Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible Complexity

What is irreducible complexity? Michael Behe, the inventor of the term irreducible complexity, said it is ‘a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.’ (Darwin's Black Box p39 in the 2006 edition) In English, irreducible complexity is a debate by proponents of intelligent design that specific organic systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler ancestors. It argues that natural selection can not explain irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is used to describe a trait of intricate systems where they need all their parts to function properly. That is, it is impractical to reduce the complexity of an irreducibly complex system by eliminating any of its component elements and still maintain the status quo.

The proponents of irreducible complexity argue that there is an intelligent designer. They say that a natural explanation is insufficient to account for every single complex organism. There are people who support the idea that humans could not possibly have come from nonliving things. The people who believe this are called creationists. Creationists believe that there is one God, and He created everything. They believe He is the Intelligent Designer and that every living creature on the planet could not have simply popped out of ‘black soup*’.

On the other hand, opponents of irreducible complexity are people who believe in evolution. They believe that out of the blue, tiny organisms appeared. Then these tiny organisms evolved into something more complex, and more complex. And eventually, you get a very complex organism. This is called m...

... middle of paper ...

...safely conclude about one thing. It seems like it is hard for many to believe that there is a Creator for the living beings, regardless of one's religion. For the majority of people, it seems much easier to accept the “most popular” ideas. For those who like to accept the popular idea, I would like to ask one question: If you found a smart phone on a beach, do you think, "Boy, this smart phone must have evolved for billions and billions years from an old phone that Bell invented, or even from a rock?" You don't. You immediately think someone in Silicon Valley/Apple Inc. invented this smart phone. You think there is a creator(s) for this phone. Then, why is it so hard for you to think that there is a Creator for us, the living things? We are much more intricate and complex than this smart phone. That is a million dollar question. Now, you think about that…