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.

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 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)