Replies

Simply because you or anyone you know cannot conceive of how a feature came to be . . .

The theory of "irreducible complexity" has nothing to do with an inability to explain how a feature came to be -- it is based on the fact, wholly supported by science, that if (for example) you change even 0.1% of the "ingredients" in a human eye, what you are left with no longer functions as an eye.

Ironically, Steven Jay Gould himself was driven to abandon his earlier notions of gradual evolution because even he couldn't quite explain how a human eye could have evolved if 99.9% of an eye couldn't see, how a mosquito wing could have evolved if 99.9% of a wing wouldn't lift it off the ground, etc. He came up with his theory of "punctuated equilibrium," which states that individual elements in an organism evolve in their entirety. Interestingly, it should be pointed out that there is no more evidence of "punctuated equilibrium" than there was of Darwin's "pure" evolution.

You're wrong, Alberta. Irreducible complexity is not a given. We don't yet know HOW the eye was made, but as Dawkins said to Michael Behe, a proponent of Irr. comp, "Try harder." We do know however that Behe suggests the clotting mechanism (in blood) is irreducibly complex and at a talk at the Museum of Natural History Ken Miller showed him a recent scientific paper that whales and dolphins lack some of the components of this supposed "molecular machne" (thats what Behe dubs irreducibly complex things) and still clots. As he said, "Nature just ran your experiment for you, and your theory failed." Eventually, if we live long enough as a species, we'll figure out how eyes evolved. It's just that we're not smart and informed enough yet. And the fact of evolution has little bearing on divinity or lack of it. It's stupid for people to think that God is some entity out there that lets nature do most of the work but occasionally jumps in to make a few irreducibly complex things like eyes. Does that reallymake any sense? Is he sitting there overseeing his creation and giving it a little nudge and wink now and then? Meanwhile he's up there drinking tea and eating crumpets. Uh uh.

Ironically, Steven Jay Gould himself was driven to abandon his earlier notions of gradual evolution because even he couldn't quite explain how a human eye could have evolved if 99.9% of an eye couldn't see, how a mosquito wing could have evolved if 99.9% of a wing wouldn't lift it off the ground, etc. He came up with his theory of "punctuated equilibrium," which states that individual elements in an organism evolve in their entirety. Interestingly, it should be pointed out that there is no more evidence of "punctuated equilibrium" than there was of Darwin's "pure" evolution.

Exactly..and what Gould and others did was to rhetorically repackage the hoary and discredited "Hopeful Monster" theory. Evolutionists are on the run and their hissing and squealing is a bit reminiscent of their putative progenitors - reptiles and pterodactyls.

Ironically, Steven Jay Gould himself was driven to abandon his earlier notions of gradual evolution because even he couldn't quite explain how a human eye could have evolved if 99.9% of an eye couldn't see, how a mosquito wing could have evolved if 99.9% of a wing wouldn't lift it off the ground, etc. He came up with his theory of "punctuated equilibrium," which states that individual elements in an organism evolve in their entirety. Interestingly, it should be pointed out that there is no more evidence of "punctuated equilibrium" than there was of Darwin's "pure" evolution.

This is a gross distortion of Gould's position. He didn't believe that individual elements in an organism evolve in their entirety. Did you ever read Gould?

In your eye example, we have step-by-step versions of eyes, ranging from light-sensitive spots on the skin of an organism straight up to the ultra-accurate masterpieces of the eagle with just about every variation in between. Sure, if you change an extent eye's makeup it's not going to work, but that's hardly proof that the extent eye was designed -- it may simply mean it followed a certain path of evolution.

The theory of "irreducible complexity" has nothing to do with an inability to explain how a feature came to be -- it is based on the fact, wholly supported by science, that if (for example) you change even 0.1% of the "ingredients" in a human eye, what you are left with no longer functions as an eye.

Except, of course, that that isn't true; many creatures have much simpler eyes than ours, all of which function well enough for those creatures to exist.

Ironically, Steven Jay Gould himself was driven to abandon his earlier notions of gradual evolution because even he couldn't quite explain how a human eye could have evolved if 99.9% of an eye couldn't see, how a mosquito wing could have evolved if 99.9% of a wing wouldn't lift it off the ground, etc. He came up with his theory of "punctuated equilibrium," which states that individual elements in an organism evolve in their entirety. Interestingly, it should be pointed out that there is no more evidence of "punctuated equilibrium" than there was of Darwin's "pure" evolution.

"Puctuated equilibrium" does not say anything like "individual elements in an organism evolve in their entirety." Not even remotely close.