Talk:Irreducible complexity: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:17, 24 January 2008

Creationism B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Irreducible complexity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Irreducible complexity. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of Irreducible complexity or promote Irreducible complexity please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages: Keep on topic.

Archives

/Archive 01 — March 2002 to January 2006
/Archive 02 — January 2006 to August 2006
/Archive 03 — August 2006 to April 2007
/Archive 04 — April 2007 to October 2007

Further 'stated examples'

I noticed that the article currently only includes three of the "stated examples" (the blood clotting cascade,the eye and bacterial flagellum), so I took a look at Darwin's Black Box to see what the others were:

cilium
gated and vesicular transport within the cell
the immune system (I seem to remember that it is actually the adaptive immune system that Behe considered to be IC)

Are we in a position to expand the article to cover any of these? Also does Behe actually consider the eye to be IC? This article is rather vague on this point, and the Darwin's Black Box doesn't list it as an example of IC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Intelligent design article irreducibly complex?

If not, then doesn't it make sense to make that article shorter and put more of its contents onto subsidiary pages or specialized articles? Just pointing that out. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These things evolve always. Articles fork and so on. And other subsiduary articles propagate.--Filll 06:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it involves this article...

Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Matthew Hoffman

Thought it might be good for you to know. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

In the opening paragraph, we're immediately asserting that ID is creationism and not science. It has very little to do with the article, I think. Just describe what the irreducible complexity argument is. The statements are about ID in general, not even the irreducible complexity argument. If we had a specific statement that the irreducible complexity argument was weak, or pseudoscience, that might be different, but this seems inappropriate.

I think the whole article has some POV issues, and seems to be pushing an anti-ID agenda.GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IC is a major component of ID, and therefore it is reasonable to discuss briefly what ID is. It would even be shorter, except for people who feel as you seem to, frantically trying to get us to add more material and cites. Since people complain to have more material and cites in the article, do not complain if we put more cites and material in the article in response to these complaints. You cannot have it both ways. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought I was actually asking you to cut some material... GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. But I think getting us to not describe ID in this article, and not to include any statements about what it is, is unrealistic.--Filll (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem with this opening paragraph is that at the moment it doesn't make much sense. It explains that irreducible complexity is an argument made by advocates of intelligent design, then says "The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science...". Up to that point, there has been no suggestion that anyone says that intelligent design is science, so it would make just as much sense to say "The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not a ballroom dancing routine". I'd be inclined to simply remove this sentence - if people want to know about intelligent design and its reputation in the scientific community, they can go to that article; but if it's going to stay in, it at least needs as much context as "Proponents of intelligent design advance it as a scientific theory", or similar. TSP (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think something similar needs to stay in, though agree that the current wording is rather choppy. IC is one of the 'sciencey' arguments for ID, so the (lack of) scientific status of ID generally & IC in particular is relevant, but it needs to be tied together better. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is not the place for arguments against IC or ID; that is why most articles have a criticism section. Especially, whether ID is science or creationism has no bearing on whether IC is scientifically valid. At present, the article is a textbook case of whole to part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.168.23 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" – improvements will be welcome, but the majority scientific view must be clearly shown at the outset. .. dave souza, talk 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is currently quite large, and could probably do with some pruning so that the most important & most relevant points aren't lost in the wash ("a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points"). E.g. that IC has been rejected by the scientific community is directly relevant, and deserves to stay, that ID generally is rejected is more tangential, and deserves serious consideration for being moved further down. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally in favor of shorter more succinct LEADs, if possible.--Filll (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Criticism-section indicates that criticism sections are frowned upon, according to the principles of Wikipedia. This even is reflected in statements of Jimbo. So if you want that to change the principles under which Wikipedia operates, you should go to one of the policy pages and endeavor to change the policy there. This is not the place to do it if that is your goal. You are on the wrong page if that is the case.--Filll (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should be in the lead?

It occurs to me that, given the large amount of information in the lead, it'd probably help to try to decide this in a systematic manner. I'm proposing that we slot points into the 4 categories below. Simply place the point into one of the categories & sign (or just add your signature at the end if you are agreeing). If you disagree with a categorisation, don't delete it, simply place it & sign in the category you think it does belong in. I'm also creating a "discussion" section, in an attempt to prevent the categories from getting cluttered. Hopefully this should allow a consensus to evolve. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical to understanding IC/definitely should be in lead

Definition of IC Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- but shorter Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Behe originator Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- but shorter Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IC is an argument for ID Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IC (specifically) has been rejected by the scientific community Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to understanding IC/probably should be in lead

IC explicitly evaluated & rejected in KvD Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adds a small amount to understanding IC/probably shouldn't be in lead

ID (generally) has been rejected by the scientific community Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specific examples of IC Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to understanding IC/definitely should not be in lead

Specific examples of IC (at least in that level of detail) Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Most of the material is just too verbose and too long, at least in my opinion. The long versions can be moved to the body, and short short summaries left in the LEAD.--Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pruned material from the lead

(In case any of it is considered useful for the article body)

Contrary to the claims of intelligent design supporters, the consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,^[1]^[2]^[3] but creationism.^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]
In 2005 in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which Behe testified in support of his claims about irreducible complexity the United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents",^[8]
Behe is on record stating he believes in evolution, but does not think life evolved from next to nothing. The argument is used in a broader context to support the idea that an intelligent designer was involved, at some point, in the creation of life, against the theory of evolution as far as creating all life (Behe admits life has evolved over millions of years, but does not believe life began through random chance) which requires no designer. In a manner of speaking, the IC argument is a definition of the "designer", or at least "what was designed", a definition that has proven elusive in the past. The most common examples used in argument are the complexity of the eye, the blood clotting cascade, or the motor in a cell's flagellum.
The examples offered to support the irreducible complexity argument have generally been found to fail to meet the definition and intermediate precursor states have been identified for several structures purported to exhibit irreducible complexity.^[9] For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.^[10] This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.^[11] Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.^[12]

References

^ Kitzmiller v. Dover page 82-3
^ See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. According to the New York Times "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth." Dean, Cordelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-28.
^ "Teachernet, Document bank". Creationism teaching guidance. UK Department for Children, Schools and Families. September 18, 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-01. The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.
Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the "God-of-the-gaps". Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 932 (help)
^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design, David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
• "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.
• Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling
^ Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.
^ Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323
^ The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.
^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling.
^ Cite error: The named reference Kitzmiller_ruling_ID_science was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ The Flagellum Unspun
^ Ode to the Flagellum, The Panda's Thumb, ScienceBlogs December 22, 2006.
^ A reducibly complex mousetrap (graphics-intensive, requires JavaScript)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat biased?

To me, it seems that this article is somewhat biased. I have done vast research on this topic, and Behe has acceptably countered every criticism that I have heard of. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[1] Kitzmiller v. Dover page 82-3

[unscientific-2] See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. According to the New York Times "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth." Dean, Cordelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-28.

[teachernet-3] "Teachernet, Document bank". Creationism teaching guidance. UK Department for Children, Schools and Families. September 18, 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-01. The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.
Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the "God-of-the-gaps". Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 932 (help)

[4] "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design, David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
• "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.
• Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling

[5] Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.

[6] Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323

[7] The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.

[8] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling.

[Kitzmiller_ruling_ID_science-9] Cite error: The named reference Kitzmiller_ruling_ID_science was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[10] The Flagellum Unspun

[11] Ode to the Flagellum, The Panda's Thumb, ScienceBlogs December 22, 2006.

[trap-12] A reducibly complex mousetrap (graphics-intensive, requires JavaScript)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 {{Reflist}}
 <font face="Antiqua, serif">[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub></font> 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
+== Somewhat biased? ==
+To me, it seems that this article is somewhat biased.  I have done vast research on this topic, and Behe has acceptably countered every criticism that I have heard of.  Does anyone have any thoughts on this?