Talk:Irreducible complexity

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.

Template:WikiProject Intelligent design

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?70.181.168.148 (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I doubt it, but provide WP:RS making the case.--Filll (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Personal opinion and original research count for nothing in wikipedia. It is what you can verify from reliable sources that counts.
2. What we have seen to date is that Behe wanders repeatedly into areas outside his expertise, and has been shown by genuine experts in these fields to have, at best, a very superficial understanding of them, insufficient to support the far-fetched claims he makes in these fields, which claims have, without exception, been debunked. The unequivocal scientific consensus, including from Behe's own department, is that irreducible complexity is without any scientific merit. Per, WP:DUE, this article will continue to give this considerable weight, as the majority viewpoint.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well if it's so "debunked," then why is that the first link in Wiki Project Intelligent Design? If truly no one believes it anymore, I don't see why that should be used as one of the main Intelligent Design arguments on Wikipedia. 70.181.168.148 (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because both major ID arguments have been debunked -- Irreducible complexity & Specified complexity. ID is pseudoscience based upon such debunked arguments. There are of course people who believe in it -- just like there are people who believe in astrology, homeopathy and any number of other pseudoscientific ideas. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. However, Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. And these ideas, although possibly debunked, are notable. And for the benefit of our readers, we include them all and the relevant information about them. Many debunked ideas like caloric theory have articles on Wikipedia. Some are interesting. Some are of historic interest. Some are necessary to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia, described in WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you Filll. That clarifies a lot, however I am still confused as to why two supposedly "debunked" topics are the first two links on the Wiki Project ID page. Surely, we could move them down to the bottom and give the more important topics of the fined-tuned universe and whatnot some light? I'm sorry, and I do not mean to have "general discussion on the article's topic," but it seems to me that the article and even the Wiki Project is still biased against ID. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral? Thanks, and sorry for my confusion. from 70.181.168.148 (for some reason my IP switched, now I'm a different IP, but im still the person known as 70.181.168.148.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.160.116 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the order is somewhat arbitrary on that page. But Hrafn is the gentleman who manages the page mainly, so maybe he will discuss it with you. But honestly it is sort of irrelevant. That project page is just to organize ourselves internally, and really confers no other importance or information based on ordering etc.--Filll (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Third party here. You are throwing out the evidence used by the ID group but letting the anti-ID group write completely bias articles. How is this neutral? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.206.196 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not understand WP. The personal stance of those writing the articles does not matter. The article must be written according to NPOV. And by NPOV, the mainstream view must be dominant. And ID is purported to be science, and the mainstream view of ID is that it is nonsense at best.--Filll (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't seem to understand. NPOV doesn't mean "majority" rules, it means that you write it from a non-bias perspective. Would it be NPOV in the south during the 1800's to write that African Americans are an inferrior race? According to your definition the answer would be yes. Perhaps I don't understand WP, perhaps WP is far too focused on being a majority rules series of articles then a fact-based dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.206.196 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If the majority of reliable, independently published sources sources said that in 1800, then yes that is exactly what Wikipedia would have reported. If there was dissent, Wikipedia, being like all encyclopedias a tertiary source, would report on the dissent in appropriate proportion. In 100 years, there will undoubtedly be things that future readers will look at in wonder. Nevertheless, this is what we know as best we know it today. Rossami (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect that in 1800, the vast majority of mainstream reliable sources would state that African Americans were an inferior race. And therefore, according to NPOV, in 1800 Wikipedia would report exactly that. Now there was a minority movement that disagree with that position, and that would be noted, but only in the proportion of their prominence. So suppose that 80% of the reliable sources said blacks are an inferior race in 1800, and 20% said that blacks were not an inferior race. About 80% of the Wikipedia content would then state what 80% of the reliable sources said, that blacks are an inferior race.

See, Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. It is not a "fact-based encyclopedia" but a "source-based encyclopedia". If the sources do not have facts in them, then that is what we will report anyway. It is not up to Wikipedia to second guess these sources and state something different. There are other Wikis for that, but Wikipedia is not one of them.--Filll (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, around the 1860s the creationist Louis Agassiz argued that African Americans were an inferior species and thus supported slavery, while Charles Darwin argued that humanity was all one species, and vigourously opposed slavery. Sometimes reality is biased, no matter how much ID proponents try to hide from it. .. dave souza, talk 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you look in mainstream encyclopediae in 1800, most of them did not have great things to say about African Americans I dare say. And the same religious sects now that are most heavily creationist today, like Pentecostals and Baptists, were the most heavily racist and in favor of slavery in the 1800s. They argued based on the biblical story of Ham that blacks are inferior and should be slaves. The sects like Unitarians and Quakers that opposed slavery are those that accept evolution today. So...--Filll (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Even the discussion on this article is trying to smear creationists as racist?! This article is ridiculously biased and gives far too much author opinion. Yet another partizan ruining Wikipedia as an academic source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.213.130 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another unsigned comment from someone evidently with an apparently strong opinion... Maybe that is what partly "ruins Wikipedia"! Just how difficult is logging in and finding the tilda key on a computer keyboard?!Jimjamjak (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The very suggestion that this theory has been "debunked" because an opposing argument has been offered displays inherent bias. That the theory is considered a "minor theory" is nothing more than a reflection of an entire field of scientists on both sides of the issue that mistake worldview for logic and metaphysics for astrophysics. WP's perspective on the "unbiased" issue is a deceptive misnomer. Restating the party line is not truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Savingedmund (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 September 2009

Thank you for repeating that party line, think we've heard it before: see the responses above, and WP:TALK for the purpose of this page which is NOT debating the topic. Do please sign your posts in future. . dave souza, talk 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a place on wiki that is intended for debates? No sarcasm intended. Sullyj4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

I am very new to contributing to Wikipedia. I therefore do not know if my comment here is according to the standards--excuse me. I felt a need to comment on the somewhat embarrassing tone of this article. I was under the impression that the standard would be much less doctrinaire and emotional. I think this article does little to advance the credibility of Wikipedia. There seems to be little desire to provide a complete analysis--pro and con--of the subject. That's a shame. hsteach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsteach (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if my logic is flawed, and also if i do something inappropriate for Wikipedia, but the way i see it (and I've never been taught otherwise, I go to a christian school, so feel free to refute me) is that inter species evolution through natural selection doesn't make sense, because for new body parts to grow like a wing (for a crude example) loads more DNA information is required, and I don't see where that information would come from. Also, even if this was possible, Darwin states that the components of the wing would grow gradually, so until it was a fully working wing, it seems to me that it would just be a pointless deadweight, which would give the owner of the wing a disadvantage, therefore natural selection would remove it. Anyway, I'm just trying to gain a better understanding of the subject. Sullyj4 (talk)

Also please put in some way a year 10 could understand. Thanks Sullyj4 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Re your question above about debates on Wikipedia: no, there should be no general forum-like discussion on any Wikipedia pages, although of course occasionally there are brief conversations on matters that are not directly helpful towards improving an article. The main point is that article talk pages are not a place for editors to express their views on the topic – use a forum on another website for that. There are pages where questions can be asked, see WP:Reference desk. You might very well post your question on evolution at WP:Reference desk/Science. I will mention that you should not expect teachers who are expert in matters regarding a religion to necessarily be expert in matters regarding science. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks, although that last comment was probably not necessary. Sullyj4 (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment - yes, the "wing could grow gradually" would be problematic. But Darwin wrote that 150 years ago. You might get a sense of more modern ideas if you read Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community. Guettarda (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite the blustering, it doesnt change the fact that the word choice by the writer is extremely biased. I teach science to middle school students. I've always taught among other things, that science is the subject for the curious, the methodical and the obsessed. When asked by students what makes the Scientific method "scientific" I usually respond that its the careful recording of the data, constant repetition of tests and the absence (to one's best ability) of personal bias in drawing conclusions. I don't have a personal opinion either way on the topic-- it makes teaching evolution in school much easier that way-- but I find it rather insulting that the writers of this article feel the need to judge for me whether or not Behe's proposition is scientific or not. Doesn't seem very scientific. I would think, that when making such a profound assertion -- "debunked", "nonscientific argument", etc-- that there would at least be links or footnotes right at those words that gave weight to the opinion. Jhaerlyn (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC) 13th Oct, 2010 ... and just as an example ... I dont see anyone treating his VERY debunked ideas about the solar system with any denegration or judgments as to whether or not he was reaching beyond his expertise. [[1]]

woops -- I didnt see that you did in fact site someone saying that its debunked... how unfortunate they dont actually present arguments... I'm going to have to hunt down those now --- my curiosity is piqued! Jhaerlyn  (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Discoverer

An IP inserted (under "Definitions"): "Although Wikipedia states that Hermann_Joseph_Muller discovered irreducible complexity, t...". Apart from the self referentiality (to WP), I dislike the word "discovered" (which also appears in the linked article). If a reference is to be made then I would suggest "invented" be used instead. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is an ambiguity in the opening to this article, "The term "irreducible complexity" was originally defined by Behe as ...". I had thought that it meant something like this: The precise wording of the expression "irreducible complexity" was introduced by Behe, and he used it to mean such-and-such. It seems that others take it, rather, to mean something like: The concept referred to by "irreducible complexity" was first analyzed by Behe, that concept being such-and-such. This second reading is likely to give rise to confusion when the reader comes across the discussion of the "Forerunners", talking about several writers who, long before Behe, discussed a very similar concept (albeit it was only more recently brought up in the context of evolution, but even there, Behe wasn't the first). Am I correct? If so, shouldn't the opening to the article be reworded to avoid ambiguity and be clearer? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the "definitions" section, I've changed the above wording to "The term "irreducible complexity" was coined by Behe, who defined it as applying to:", and modified the lead to "Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex...." Hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Learned Nothing

I came here to learn more about ID for a research paper and learned nothing despite arguments against it. Whereas it is certainly important to have arguments against ID (since the debate is highly controversial), it is not necessary to have a rebuttal to every ID claim the next sentence afterward. This article is obviously slanted away from even objectively informing people what ID even is. Pathetic...Mr2b (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you learnt something elsewhere, your suggestions for article improvement will be welcome. As the layout and weight given to ID arguments is determined by policies linked under Article policies in the second box at the top of this page, it will be constructive if you could make the case for proposals here first rather than starting by making any drastic changes to the article. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a blatantly clear slant here, and it is being handled the same way as the opposition to anything ID related is handled. The sheer number of people dissenting on this talk page speaks as to the soul of wikipedia, "policies" and your interpretation of them be damned. From the text of one of the "WP:RS" - "ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." How can "ID" (A hypothesis) make a "negative attack" on another hypothesis (whatever the strengths of either).

The greatest evidence for the blatant slant is apparent in the very last line of the lead-in... "which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]" not only speaking for "the scientific community" (which thankfully, is still full of people asking questions, regardless of the popularity it gives them) but then it CITES the following: ""True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design ... use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'" So, now an editorial opinion qualifies as a WP:RS? And then the icing on this cake is where this opinion comes from: Shulman, Seth (2006). Undermining science: suppression and distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 13. - This man (out of Berkeley.) is a journalist and author. Not a scientist of any order. He has written a politically charged anti-Bush book (in 2004, no less) and it received critical acclaim. From the anti-Bush crowd (which, interestingly enough, includes some scientists). This book was endorsed by some scientists (~12,000... no small number by any means, although their credentials aren't listed) as a whole, not specifically because a journalist uses derogatory remarks against we he terms "psuedoscience" (which is the new byword for anything that challenges the establishment). The fact alone that this joke of a WP:RS stands on this page is testament to those rabidly defending the impartiality of this article.

Next up "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." AGAIN "most members" yet this number is never cited.

Every single WP:RS used is a snide and derisive review on something that more than a few people are interested in. How about some cold, hard, scientific refutation of IC instead of this liberal vs conservative tripe?

I am no scientist. But, like the original poster, I came here to LEARN about "IC". Instead, I found a wikipedia article that has surpassed any previous bias I have experienced on here.

And please, don't insult me with "if you can make the article better..." maybe ID/IC *IS* crap, you don't have to debase Wikipedia by devoting a page to slandering it while masquerading as information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archon888 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 April 2010

The problem is that all scientists currently working in biology and medicine know that the evolutionary explanation for life is correct. Further, all "irreducible complexity" scenarios have been shown to be compatible with evolution (that is, the irreducible complexity argument is wrong). Accordingly, there are few scientists willing to waste time publishing papers pointing out the IC errors, just as there are no suitably qualified scientists publishing papers saying it is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Total utter garbage. I know for a fact that this is not only just wrong, but quite considerably off the mark. This page is of poor quality, and extremely one-sided, and now we know why. It is edited by religious zealots worshiping at the altar of Darwinian evolution. Though my opinion on the creationist versus darwinist debate was initially neutral, nonsense such as this almost makes me happy that the phylogenetic tree is dying a painful death in the light of accruing genomic sequencing data. 82.132.248.167 (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, what source did you use to come up with the bogus statement that "'all' scientists currently working in biology and medicine know that the evolutionary explanation for life is correct?" It is an absurd statement on two levels. First, it is empirically false. The Discovery Institute maintains a list of Ph. D. level scientists who have expressed skepticism of the idea that darwinian evolution can explain the complexity of life. The statement reads "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Your statement is also absurd on an a priori level. Scientific methodology does not produce certainty. There is not a single scientist on earth that knows that the neo-darwinian explanation is the "correct" one. Scientists think certain things based on their interpretation of available evidence. And their interpretations aren't even based on available evidence, only on whatever evidence they themselves are privy to. Snoopydaniels (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

@Snoopy There are variety of issues with the DI list. There's a whole article on it, in fact. For one, the majority of those listed are not scientists, or active in any field related to biology. Secondly, the statement is not an objection to evolution, but an expression of skepticism. As a result, some of those on the list signed under a false pretense, and their subsequent requests to be removed have been ignored by the DI. Thirdly, the number of signatures (even in full) is minuscule. Compare to, say, Project Steve. The conclusion that the DI draws from this list -- that there is doubt or debate within the scientific community -- is not only a false one, but in fact their data shows quite the opposite; If this is the best that the largest, and most luxuriously funded proponent of ID can do, there very clearly isn't any doubt within science. Jess_talk|_edits 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jess Your above paragraph is completely irrelevant. The Dissent from Darwin list, even if all of your criticisms were true and supported by reliable sources (and they are not), demonstrates Johnuniq's statement from above to be false. Snoopydaniels (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

@Snoopy: you know what to do. Bring us your reliable sources. If, as you suggest, there really is significant dissent within the scientific community, than it should have produced an impact in the scientific literature. Given your certainty of this strong skepticism, finding this should not be a big ask. Further, rather than make sweeping statements about this article, can you please suggest specific changes you'd like to make. --PLUMBAGO 12:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

@Snoopy I'd echo Plumbago's reply. As well, I'd refer you again to the article on the DI list, which cites 61 sources. I do believe the Kitzmiller v Dover case covers this sort of thing as well, (it at least covers why the DI is a questionable source), and I've linked you to that twice now. I didn't go out of my way to look up everything I linked you to just for the fun of it. I was hoping you'd actually read them. If you can find reliable sources which meet WP:RS, then we can talk about changing the article. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Bejamin Wiker & Jonathan Witt Eye Rebuttal

In A Meaningful World Benjamin Wiker & Jonathan Witt recognize the scientific explanation for the evolution of the eye given here, but their rebuttal is different from Behe's as it focuses on the macro:

This problem cannot be avoided by asserting that the eye can be built up gradually from a single patch of light-sensitive skin through various stages, slowly reaching the complexity of the vertebrate eye. Why? If you are going to make the case for the evolution of the vertebrate eye or even a light-sensitive patch of skin, the argument must be made in regard to the entire complexity of the living organism, at least insofar as that complexity supports vision (even in the least complex form). For this reason, the debate shouldn't be about the evolution of the eye, but about the evolution of vision, and vision is always the vision of some particular kind of living animal, a living whole whole in which the integrated activity and experience of seeing, even in its simplest form, can take place. (p. 44)

Does anyone have a reason this should not be mentioned along Behe's rebuttal at the end of the eye section? Also, the "although the photoceptor reaction is roughly analogous to the independently evolved light reaction used by plants in photosynthesis" rebuttal to his rebuttal is not a valid one as Behe would likely say that the plant photoreceptor is irreducibly complex as well. I will remove that part until someone can source it or at least explain how that is a rebuttal.--Jorfer (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposals to wording of the opening paragraphs

It seems any of my nominal edits to the introduction are being repeatedly blocked by Charlesdrakew, an individual it seems who has accrued some notoriety as a committed Darwinist zealot, and in his conviction almost blind to the notion that the opening paragraphs sound so one-sided and biased as to make this entire page read like a 12-year old's twitter rant. Now Mr Charlesdrakew, let me make this clear. I am neither creationist nor darwinist, but I would like to make the opening paragraphs sound more professional. I propose the following:

"Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems demonstrate features of complexity that are so lacking in redundant components that they are unlikely to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations."

This is far more representative, I think, of what this hypothesis proposes.

Proposals to changes in wording for neutrality purposes:

The term "non-scientific", in the very first sentence, is off-putting and gives the article a feel of unprofessionalism and bias from the offset. I propose that if you wish to put "non-scientific" into the introduction, I would like it to be referenced and elaborated on (something inherently unsuitable for an introductory sentence). To state later that there is a scientific consensus against IC, then to provide a reference, is more than enough to convey this argument, in my opinion.

"However, some evolutionary biologists have proposed various models by which such systems can in fact evolve." to replace "Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve, and Behe's examples are considered to constitute an argument from ignorance."

The sentence:

"It is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]"

reads as if it is refering specifically to irreducible complexity, but the references refer to intelligent design in general. I propose that it either be removed and the references transfered to the main ID article, or that the wording be changed to

"Intelligent design is rejected as pseudoscience by evolutionary biologists."

Either way, from a literary perspective, it looks out of place in an introductory paragraph describing IC.

82.132.248.167 (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"notoriety as a committed Darwinist zealot" among whom? Your fellow creationists presumably. Darwinist is not a term that sientists normally use. I merely pointed out that changes to an agreed text on a sensitive subject are best discussed first. I am not the one trying to change it.--Charles (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Your fellow creationists presumably.""Darwinist is not a term that sientists normally use." Please don't try and destroy whatever credibility you may think you have with childish and presumptious comments such as this. And there is a first time for everything, even in your narrow world view. I'm sorry to upset your much coveted self-esteem here, but there *have* been concerns regarding your neutrality on this issue from people other than creationists. Now, do you have any objection to these proposed changes? 82.132.139.231 (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What, 82.132.139.231, is a "Darwinist"? Please note our no personal attacks policy – allegations that another editor has "notoriety" as a "zealot" are unacceptable, and can lead to blocking. As for your proposed change, it doesn't reflect the cited source – while you may think your definition is better, such original research by you isn't suitable for Wikipedia – you're welcome to propose a reliable source for a definition, but not to make your own interpretations. Your proposal is also rather incoherent, though I think your intention can be grasped. Not an improvement. . . dave souza, talk 13:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As someone who is not a proponent of irreducible complexity, I still found the bias in this article more blatant than anything I've ever read on Wikipedia. Rather than rewording the opening paragraph, renaming the article "Criticism of Irreducible Complexity" seems like a more appropriate change. Also, the article has a bitter and condescending tone that falls outside of scholarly standards. Wikipedia's article on the flat earth model is far less presumptuous. In fact, I'd recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth for an example of how to professionally present an idea outside the current scientific consensus. (Abbefaria (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

Do you have any specific improvements you'd like to make that you want to discuss here? Gabbe (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@Abbefaria In light of your recommendation to make this article's tone more similar to the Flat Earth article's, might I suggest that this article make greater use of the past tense in its opening paragraphs? e.g. "Most pre-modern cultures have had conceptions of intelligent design", modelled on "Most pre-modern cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth." Similar changes could be made throughout the opening paragraphs to reflect historical scientific ideas, and then the current consensus (i.e. the existing paragraphs) could be introduced. Carderne2 (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer used an argument about the impossibility (in his view) that natural selection could generate "co-operative" parts:"the relative powers of co-operative parts cannot be adjusted solely by survival of the fittest". It is not that Spencer was Lamarckian, but rather the particular argument involving "co-operative" parts, which seems to be very similar to the argument from "irreducible complexity". TomS TDotO (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Says who? This appears to be original research, and we really need a published source that has noticed this vague similarity and specifically refers to irreducible complexity. . . . dave souza, talk 13:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark Ridley,

"Coadapatation and the Inadequacy of Natural Selection", British Journal for the History of Science,volume 15 number 1 (March, 1982), pages 45-68, doi:10.1017/S0007087400018938:

"An older and more religious tradition of idealist thinkers were committed to the explanation of complex adaptive contrivances by intelligent design. ... Another line of thinkers, unified by the recurrent publications of Herbert Spencer, also saw coadaptation as a composed, irreducible whole, but sought to explain it by the inheritance of acquired characteristics." (pages 67-68)

I have to do a little more work before adding something appropriate to the article. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so that tells us what the "thinkers" saw, but still doesn't say much about Spencer. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to work up an accurate, brief description of Spencer's concept of "co-operative parts" used as an argument against the sufficiency of natural selection. Spencer wasn't given to terse descriptions (he spends about eight pages in "The Principles of Biology" describing it), and I thought that what I quoted was about as good as one can get, without going into something which is disproportionately long for an article on "irreducible complexity" - Ridley's article, which seems to me to be good, is 24 pages long.

TomS TDotO (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this variation on the quotation from Spencer would be better?

"We come now to Professor Weismann's endeavour to disprove my second thesis — that it is impossible to explain by natural selection alone the co-adaptation of co-operative parts. It is thirty years since this was set forth in "The Principles of Biology." In §166, I instanced the enormous horns of the extinct Irish elk, and contended that in this and in kindred cases, where for the efficient use of some one enlarged part many other parts have to be simultaneously enlarged, it is out of the question to suppose that they can have all spontaneously varied in the required proportions."

"Weismannism Once More", The Contemporary Review, 1894 (reprinted in "The Works of Herbert Spencer", 1891, volume 17), pages 592-608; quotation from page 594.

TomS TDotO (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of additional secondary sources that I have, which I think would be excessive to cite in the main article, but are too good to just throw away, so perhaps you will excuse me if I quote them here.

"Against selection itself Spencer used an argument that had considerable force when measured against the pregenetical selection theory ... . He pointed out that when a new structure evolved, all the rest of the body would have to accommodate the new development. Thus a series of variations would be required to adjust the overall structure in a manner correlated to the new organ. What would be the chance of all these variations appearing together at the right time, if the species had to depend on random variation? Selection might explain the changes in a single organ, but not an integrated transmutation of the whole body."

Page 245 of Peter J. Bowler (1984). Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-04880-6.

"Spencer ... had invested his major defense of Lamarck in the phenomenon of co-adaptation. How could natural selection, working separately on each trait, produce an intricate coordination of numerous parts, all changing in the same direction?"

Page 218Stephen Jay Gould (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.

TomS TDotO (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, they're interesting but differ significantly in that Spencer sees them as implying the inheritance of acquired characteristics, a process Darwin also thought was occurring, while the whole point of "irreducible complexity" is that Goddunnit cos natural processes couldn't. So, not really the same thing. . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading your addition, it looks ok to me. . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

After reading the article, and the above comments, I believe that it is clear to anybody on either side that some sort of discussion needs to take place to get the article to retract it's claws (Just a bit). It reads like a criticism and not a neutral article. I'm certain that the language can be softened just a tad-bit, so it reads more professionally. --209.112.222.8 (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, could you please make specific proposals with sources supporting any changes. Also note that neutrality means giving proportionate weight to scientific views, and not giving undue credence to pseudoscience. Thanks, dave souza, talk 21:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A small minority of people will always see this and many other articles as biased, but we have to go with the weight of scientific evidence.--Charles (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What is Science anyway?

To say that "Irreducible complexity (IC) is a nonscientific argument..." begs the question "What is science?". Have we forgotten that Philosophy is the queen of all sciences - she is independent of all other sciences and all other sciences are governed and protecdted by her! At the top of Phiosophy stands metaphysics - Logic follows. Is the auther in search of truth or is the author promoting an agenda? Does the author believe in absolute truth, like First Principles, or relative truth? In any case the author is using language, trying to convey concepts, that can only be anchored in and rely upon Philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.157.16 (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Science is the stuff which leads to progress: things like the research behind electronics, computers, the Internet, airplanes, medical procedures, and a bunch more. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It also generally follows the scientific method, is parsimonious, is falsifiable, etc. So yes, at a basic level, the argument of irreducible complexity is not scientific75.76.196.182 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@98.235 Wikipedia is not a forum. Please take your inquiries somewhere else. Thanks. Jess ^talk _cs 02:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

Look, although some editors are reverting content they see as unsourced or fringe, AND although these editors plainly state their POVs on their user pages; it still appears to be a WP:COI issue. It is disinenguous to say something is unsourced when plainly it contained inline citations. You can argue the quality of the sources, but they ARE there. Lying about a reversion while having a COI of your own, can cause undesirable reactions that we don't need. Please control your emotions and passions long enough to at least call something what it REALLY is and not what you want it to be. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 19:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about this edit? In it, substantial changes to 3 separate sections of the article are made, entirely changing the content and tone of the article, and only one source is provided, directly from the Discovery Institute. Furthermore, the user is edit warring with no discussion, which is against policy (and likely to get him blocked). If you want that info included, you need to make a case for it here and establish consensus first.

I would suggest reading WP:Fringe and WP:PSCI before you do, as they directly apply to this article and the proposed content. I would also recommend reading through WP:AGF, as suggesting that other users are lying is a personal attack, and likely to get you in trouble. Finally, while we're tacking on policy pages, you may wish to actually read WP:COI, as it doesn't apply in this case, and plainly states so in the guideline. Jess_talk|_edits 19:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies; let's say your edit summary was inaccurate then, happy? You said "unsourced" did you not? He provided sources, whether they were good ones or not. I mean I thought I saw some ref tags, or did I just see things? Maybe you should work on making your edit summary what it should be, hmmm? I think that would work. I've done an edit or two around here, so I think I should know. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, TFI, thought you meant my edit for a moment, the summary to which was unexplained promotion fringe views. As for the subsequent summary of Unsourced POV, that accurately describes the claims described immediately below, which are not supported by the sources. However, the poorly sourced apologia were removed at the same time, so arguably that should have been highlighted as Unsourced and poorly sourced POV. I'm sure you didn't mean to be disingenuous in suggesting that all the pov was sourced, and trust you will take great care in future to avoid making personal attacks by accusing other editors of lying instead of assuming good faith. . . dave souza, talk 16:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I will be careful, but any editor that comes into a controversial article (with huge personal opinions on their user page) and deletes content without a credible rationale or attempt at discussion should know the consequences of such an approach. The content added by the one editor appeared to be nothing more than attempt to be evenhanded, and did not even amount to strong disagreement with the existing content. People can play WP lawyer all they want, but that is not what WP is all about. If you don't want to be viewed as a censor, then it is an editor's duty to take extra care not to appear like one. The assumption of good faith has its limit as can be seen in vandalism warning rules. It also works both ways. You can't throw that up for everything. Peace. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@ The Founders Intent, please note that in addition to the points raised by Mann Jess, the changes reversed the meaning of statements properly attributed to sources: Barbara Forrest does not call IC a "scientific" argument, and it's not credible to claim that "the argument is one of several arguments proceeding from multiple disciplines in support of the theory of intelligent design, and is a subject of debate within the scientific community" on the basis of the cited source which is the Kitzmiller decision, see pp. 74–79. Regarding the ID proponents' claims, the primary sources cited are obviously questionable and are skewed to the fringe viewpoint, if any points are to be included they should be discussed by secondary sources giving the necessary context. . . dave souza, talk 08:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid this little discussion is my fault. I'm completely new to the complexities of Wikipedia community and I only realized after my second attempt to edit that such changes require discussion.

Here is as good a place as any to make my case. First, you are quite right that the original anonymous edit lacked proper sourcing. I got a bit ahead of myself with the editing and made a piecemeal change which was incomplete. My subsequent edits, however, had more than adequate citation considering how modest they were. The introduction at least, if not the entire article, is shamefully biased in favor of evolution. It presumes a monopoly on the very definition of what is scientific and what is not when the very nature of the scientific enterprise is the subject of philosophical inquiry to this day.

It is silly to argue that these edits violate WP:Fringe policies when the article itself is about what you would label as a fringe view. The goal of the article should be to present this "fringe" view as faithfully as possible, and the only way to do that is to go to its proponents, not its opponents. Certainly it involves presenting the counterarguments of its opponents, but it also involves presenting the counter-counter arguments such as, for example, in the case of Kenneth Miller's mouse trap argument. Behe and others have presented refutations of Miller, but none of these appear in the article. Instead, the author(s) sources are almost entirely from virulent evolutionists. This is akin to citing Karl Marx in an article about capitalism and dismissing Adam Smith's writings on the basis of his criticism. Of course evolutionists are going to say that irreducible complexity is not a scientific argument. It spares them the labor of actually having to refute it scientifically.

Even the outline and headings of the article are biased. The section titled "Response of the Scientific Community" presumes that intelligent design proponents are not part of that very community. Behe, Axe, Meyer, Wells and others are highly credentialed scientists who should be accorded every respect accorded to evolutionists. The section should be relabeled, "Response of Evolutionists" to reflect the fact that proponents of both Darwinian Evolution and ID are subsets of the scientific community, not that one is an "in" group and one is an "out" group. This isn't high school.

One of the most laughable sections of the article is when, while discussing the mouse trap argument, the author(s) state that "In an amusing example taken from his high school experience, Miller recalls that one of his classmates." There is nothing neutral about this statement. The word "amusing" has no place in an encyclopedia entry.

These are just a few examples. This article as it stands clearly violates WP:NPOV and makes a mockery of Wikipedia. I am not proposing that we remove evolutionist criticisms (although I think there are many statements in the article that are gross overstatements, such as "Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve"), but I am proposing that these be balanced with ID counterarguments. As much as evolutionists hate to admit it, there IS a scientific debate going on with respect to the idea of irreducible complexity, and it should be the purpose of this article to communicate this significant fact. Snoopydaniels (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopydaniels (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is yet another very alarming piece of evidence for evolution: Latest bacterial mutation emerged in India. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Snoopy. Thanks for taking the time to write out the reason for your changes. There's two things I'd like to respond to.

1. You appear to be saying that we should give ID proponents "the last word" because this is an article about ID. However, that's not what WP:Fringe or WP:Weight tell us to do. The article should include the full views of those proposing Irreducible complexity, and the main responses it has garnished, but we can't turn it into a debate. In the case of the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, for example, it is enough to say "Behe gave testimony to X, and the court responded that Y". This should seem reasonable in any other context. For instance, in the Flat Earth article, should we give "equal time", or "the last word" to modern proponents of a flat earth model? Clearly not. It should be sufficient to say "There are modern proponents of a flat earth model who believe X. Scientists disagree due to Y", and leave it at that. Indeed, this is consistent with WP:NPOV.
2. You also state that ID is a scientific theory, and is debated within the scientific community. However, this is not the case, as the Intelligent Design article illuminates. If you have some spare time, I would highly recommend reading through the Kitzmiller v Dover decision, particularly page 63 through 89. If you're still interested, this article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation provides further insight into the "debate", some of its history, and those defending it.

I should note now that it is uncommon to have lengthy conversations about the article's content on talk pages per WP:NOTFORUM, but I'd like to have at least offered you solid reasons for why we've settled on things the way they are. After reading through that material, if you're still interested in adding this content to the article, your best bet is to find reliable secondary sources which explicitly state what you have. (Particularly those not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, which has a history of lying, even under oath, making it a questionable source we cannot use). Since wikipedia is about verifiability, not fact, this will be instrumental to your case. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. If the discussion page isn't intended for discussion of the article's content then what is it for? I thought the whole point of the discussion page was for the community to suggest and discuss changes to an article's content before making them. Where would be a more appropriate forum for this discussion? Snoopydaniels (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Snoopy! I replied on your talk page with clarification and a few suggestions. Feel free to let me know if there's any more ambiguity! Jess_talk|_edits 19:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)