Irreducible complexity

One of the arguments used by creationists, for a non evolutionary explanation of complex systems in living organisms, is the assumption of ‘irreducible complexity’. That is, any complex system consisting of many dependent parts, could not have arisen piece by piece. You have to have all the bits in place at any one time for the system to work. Take away some of the bits or even one of the bits and the whole system stops functioning.

Therefore, the drip by drip, mutation by mutation, explanation leading to the gradual acquisition of the whole complex system could not have occurred. On the face of it this is quite a strong argument for a designer who could easily create such complex systems instantaneously.

So, being an evolutionist, I was full of anticipation when I began watching a lecture on You Tube by Prof. Kenneth Miller entitled ‘The Collapse of Intelligent Design’.

Professor Miller promised that in the lecture he would show that irreducible complexity did not exist, and this truth would lead to the repudiation of an intelligent designer.

While listening to the lecture I began to realise that the arguments that Prof.Miller was putting forward for the non existence of ‘irreducible complexity’ were very feeble and in one case non scientific.

Prof. Miller concerned himself with two examples that are often used by creationists to demonstrate irreducible complexity. These arguments concern the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade of interacting enzymes.

Let’s take the bacterial flagellum argument first.

Prof.Miller was feeling very generous [suspiciously too generous in my opinion] when he proposed taking away ‘not a few proteins, but taking away 40 of the 50 proteins that make up the flagellum to see if the 10 remaining proteins have any useful function for the bacterium’

Well, as Prof. Miller pointed out the 10 remaining proteins make up the ‘type 3 secretory system’ of the bacterium. This system acts as a molecular syringe for the bacterium. So it would appear that we can reduce the complex system of the flagellum and what remains is not useless, but has a function for the bacterium. Therefore, the concept of irreducible complexity collapses. But, let’s pause for a minute and examine Prof. Miller’s apparent generosity in removing so many proteins. I am not sure that this is as generous as it seems. In order to show that irreducible complexity is false, it is not good enough to remove a quantum of proteins that you already know, will leave you with a viable complex of proteins which, ipso facto, proves your case.

What we need to do is to remove 7 or 11or 32 or some other number of proteins and see if what is left has a viable use for the bacterium. Would each stage in the possible/probable evolution of the flagellum have an independent viable use? Maybe they would, but it’s doubtful that they would. However, this would be a fairer test of the validity of irreducible complexity than the one Prof Miller used.

Now for the other argument he used, that is, the cascade of many enzymes to bring about the clotting of blood at the site of a wound. Creationist would argue that you need all of the enzymes in the right place and in the right order for blood to clot. You can’t creep up on this system bit by bit or mutation by mutation. It’s all or nothing.

This is a very strong intellectual argument for ‘irreducible complexity’.

So, Prof Miller suggested we take away factor 12 of the clotting mechanism and see what happens. Factor 12 is essential for the clotting of terrestrial mammalian blood.

It was at this point Miller’s argument departs from basic scientific procedure. It’s absolutely essential that in any experiment, even in a thought experiment, that you only change one variable at a time.

But Prof. Millar changes two variables, and its mind boggling that he has the cheek to do so.

He didn’t propose the removal of factor 12 from the blood clotting mechanism of a terrestrial mammal, thereby changing one variable, but he proposed changing the species as well. Thus changing two variables.

His argument went like this, if you look at the blood clotting cascade of a WHALE or DOLPHIN!!!! You find that factor 12 is missing.

So, he now cites a marine mammal which doesn’t have the factor 12 but has a perfectly good blood clotting mechanism. This was to show that you don’t need factor 12 for blood to clot!!

Of course you don’t need factor 12 if the blood clots without it and has done for thousands of years.

However, it gets worse. Professor Millar now suggests that we can show that irreducible complexity doesn’t exist by removing several other enzymes as well as factor 12.

This time he doesn’t jump species he jumps classes and cites the PUFFER FISH. This fish doesn’t have factor 12 and doesn’t have some of the other blood clotting enzymes found in terrestrial mammals. But lo and behold, the puffer fish has perfectly good clotting blood.

As far as the blood clotting cascade is concerned, in order to bring about the collapse of irreducibility, we have to demonstrate that each of the possible evolutionary phases of the cascade, bestowed on the recipient, some kind of survival factor. Eventually of course, resulting in a full blown blood clotting mechanism.

It’s simply not good enough to cite another blood clotting system which doesn’t have the enzyme in the first place.

As evolutionists, if we are to prove the falsehood of irreducible complexity, we have to demonstrate that a complex system could arrive bit by bit and that each step in its evolution bestowed a selective advantage on the recipient. If it didn’t, then it wouldn’t be selected for by the process of natural selection

We evolutionists need to come up with lot better arguments than Prof Miller’s before irreducible complexity collapses.

Epicurus