It’s kind of interesting, but it’s been appropriated by American Protestant fundamentalism. As I’m a non—materialist, then I’m inclined towards a kind of ‘the enemy of the enemy is my friend’ attitude with respect to ID arguments against materialism. The problem is, though, that they err in important matters. I’ve visited uncommondescent.com over the years, which is ID central, and I notice they’re hard-core, died-in-the-wool, absolutist climate-change deniers. That tells you something.

Which is not to say that the argument from design doesn’t have merits. But the problem with it is, it tries to create an empirical argument for something which is by definition beyond the scope of empiricism. So, I feel that ID arguments mirror the materialist arguments they’re wanting to disprove. Lean one way, then you’re tending towards religious fundamentalism which is the literal interpretation of mythological truths. Lean the other way, you’re tending towards materialism which is the metaphysical interpretation of methodological naturalism. A ‘middle path’ is able to accomodate a religious sensibility and a thoroughly empirical attitude, by recognising something like Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria (which is accepted by neither Dawkins nor his ID antagonists .)

So, I feel that ID arguments mirror the materialist arguments they’re wanting to disprove. Lean one way, then you’re tending towards religious fundamentalism which is the literal interpretation of mythological truths. Lean the other way, you’re tending towards materialism which is the metaphysical interpretation of methodological naturalism. A ‘middle path’ is able to accommodate a religious sensibility and a thoroughly empirical attitude, by recognizing something like Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria (which is accepted by neither Dawkins nor his ID antagonists .) — Wayfarer

I agree that ID uses materialistic arguments to counter materialism. From empirical evidence, they reach the same conclusion as materialists : "it's turtles all the way down". Or as they prefer : "irreducible complexity" can only be resolved with a leap of faith. Therefore, faced with a brain boggler, they add a hypothetical black box to absorb the infinite regression : "God is the big turtle to end all turtles".

From the neutrality of that elliptical thought stopper . . . they assert that their own religious tradition has provided authoritative insights to the mind of the Big Turtle. To that, I reply ipse dixit. On the other hand, physicalist scientists have rewound the "tape" of empirical Evolution until the evidence ran-out at the "Big Bang" beginning. So, apart from divine revelation, nobody on this side of the creation event has any verifiable knowledge of the other side : Infinity & Eternity. Hence, both Big Turtle and Multiverse notions are intrinsically imaginative speculative opinions, with inherent biases.

Therefore, having followed both lines of reasoning to their point of divergence, I have concluded that neither side knows what it is talking about, when they make ultimate claims about what's inside the Black Box. Scriptural revelations are obviously based on pre-scientific human speculations rather than supernatural Gnostic knowledge. And scientific cosmologies are inherently limited to the post-Big Bang era for empirical evidence. Hence, neither side has any claim on ultimate Truth. So, for those of us motivated to go beyond the frustrating limits to human perception, we have no choice but to resort to fallible human reasoning, for constructing our own personal imaginative speculative opinions. And we must deal with our inherent subjective biases and areas of ignorance as best we can.

Since the beliefs & opinions of religious & scientific authorities can't be trusted to provide the final word on the mysteries of Reality, my belief system must remain flexible & open-minded --- following the pragmatic policy of Jesus : "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves". Therefore, I have resolved to follow the "middle path" between "religious sensibilities" and scientific dispassion, guided by my own principle of BothAnd. It accepts information from both sides of Gould's pragmatic compromise. But it remains "woke" to the reality that both Magisteria will occasionally violate the DMZ truce, and cross the line between the authority of Faith and that of Reason.

The result of that attempt at Consilience is my own personal Myth of the creative process : Intelligent Evolution. :nerd:


BothAnd Principle : My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Intelligent Evolution : This open-ended essay is not intended to present a scientific theory, but merely the kernel of a modern myth based on a 21st Century worldview.
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

My question is - can the idea of irreducible complexity be interesting philosophically? — Wheatley

It appears this concept overlaps with weak and strong emergence.

I am not a believer in ID either, but I think the field is at least a required counter-balance to mainstream evolutionary science.

I wonder about how evolution could lead to comedy or music - neither seems to have an obvious evolutionary driver - so I think remaining open minded maybe the correct policy. For example, there are theories, as promoted in Ridley Scott's movies, that the human race may have been genetically altered by visiting aliens at sometime in the past. Hard to disprove.

I am not a believer in ID either, but I think the field is at least a required counter-balance to mainstream evolutionary science. — Devans99

Yes. That's the point of the BothAnd philosophy. Materialist Science and Spiritualist Religion serve well in their own Magisteria : physical vs emotional welfare, But when they stray into the opposition's domain, the inherent limitations of their methods run into roadblocks. For example, as you noted, the materialist approach of Science cannot explain the emergence of "comedy or music", which have little to do with survival of the fittest. And Religion's resort to divine revelation to resolve philosophical mysteries leaves it open to various interpretations, and no way to weed-out false prophets, except politically-motivated inquisitions.

So, my solution to the dilemma is to accept the best of both methods, and to apply them judiciously : Science to Quantitative (physical) questions and Religion to Qualitative (metaphysical) mysteries. Ironically, the result of that marriage of estranged bedfellows is essentially a return to the basic methods of Philosophy : Research and Reason; Facts and Theories; with a soupçon of skepticism.

I am not a believer in ID either, but I think the field is at least a required counter-balance to mainstream evolutionary science. — Devans99

Have a look at https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

Perhaps ironically, 'irreducible complexity' is - or ought to be - the null hypothesis of all evolutionary science. That is, it ought to be the methodological starting point from which any empirical investigation ought to take it's lead - the idea that such and such a feature cannot be accounted for by evolutionary means just is the base hypothesis from which scientific evidence is marshalled to counter. So 'irreducible complexity' should not be seen as something extra-scientific. It lies at the heart of the scientific method without which science would simply become dogma.

Of course this is fudged by ID idiots when the absence of evidence is taken - by magical leap - as evidence for design. As usual it's shitty god of gaps bullshit, as all theology is and can only ever be.

Materialism is just theology without God.

For the most common usage of the word "theology", the phrase "theology without God" doesn't make sense. So, I would say:
1) Materialism is just theology with self as God, or
2) Materialism and Theology both require belief.

My question is - can the idea of irreducible complexity be interesting philosophically?

And also, philosophically speaking, can there be anything that is truly irreducibly complex? — Wheatley

Your question is unclear. There are any number of hypothetical features about which we could say with a high degree of confidence that they could not have evolved in an Earth organism - tempered steel claws, for example. Or, in a more abstract sense, given some processes operating in some environment, there are any number of outcomes that are outside the range of possible outcomes of those processes. For example, gravitational accretion will not result in an object shaped like Taj Mahal.

There seems to be more to the idea of irreducible complexity than just being outside the range of possible evolutionary outcomes - the word "complexity" provides a hint, but it is difficult to elucidate what it is exactly that creationist proponents of the idea are trying to get at (not for the lack of trying on their their part, but they aren't a terribly competent bunch, nor are they particularly concerned with intellectual rigor). That's one problem with the idea, and one reason why it is difficult to treat philosophically.

If you take a particular biological feature of unknown evolutionary origin and ask whether it perhaps could not have evolved, you will have a tough job in trying to prove the negative. What you see is just the end result, which often reveals little about its own origin. Take something as simple and paradigmatically irreducible as an arch: if you try to build it bit by bit without the use of auxiliary structures like centers, it would be unstable, not to mention non-functional during its intermediate stages.



But then an arch could also start as a solid formation, from which material was gradually removed.



With biological evolution the possible paths are so numerous and at times so circuitous that the challenge before an irreducible complexity proponent becomes insurmountable.

Perhaps ironically, 'irreducible complexity' is - or ought to be - the null hypothesis of all evolutionary science. That is, it ought to be the methodological starting point from which any empirical investigation ought to take it's lead - the idea that such and such a feature cannot be accounted for by evolutionary means just is the base hypothesis from which scientific evidence is marshalled to counter. So 'irreducible complexity' should not be seen as something extra-scientific. It lies at the heart of the scientific method without which science would simply become dogma. — StreetlightX

This is a pretty bizarre statement on its face. Is this some kind of misguided Popperianism? I don't think that any evolutionary scientists ever start from the assumption that something is irreducibly complex - not as a formal methodological move, nor in any other sense that I can think of.

I don't think that any evolutionary scientists ever start from the assumption that something is irreducibly complex — SophistiCat

If one understands IC as simply a negative thesis ('X cannot be explained by means of Y') then it amounts to nothing but a base statement of fallibilism. It's the same principle as having control groups for tests: the base assumption is always that one's hypothesis makes not one jot of difference, and its only when measured against this standard does any science worthy of the name live up to it. Pretty basic stuff.

If one understands IR as simply a negative thesis ('X cannot be explained by means of Y') then it amounts to nothing but a base statement of fallibilism. — StreetlightX

But no one takes seriously the possibility that some biological feature is not evolved, let alone the stronger proposition that it could not have evolved in principle. IR is useless as a null hypothesis (if null hypothesis testing is what you had in mind).

But no one takes seriously the possibility that some biological feature is not evolved — SophistiCat

If one is committed to science being an empirical discipline, rather than an ideological one, one had better take it seriously. Alternatively, you're welcome to set up your altar in the corner and join the rest of the fanatics.

If one is committed to science being an empirical discipline, rather than an ideological one, one had better take it seriously. Alternatively, you're welcome to set up your altar in the corner and join the rest of the fanatics. — StreetlightX

Oh brother :roll: I suppose the null hypothesis for an entomologist that discovers a new fly species is that these flies are spontaneously generated by rotten meat. Because science!

Oh dear someone doesn't know what a null hypothesis is, how unfortunate. No wonder you want to defend an unempirical science. You can barely get the basic terms straight.

Oh, so you've had the time to google null hypothesis in the meanwhile. Good for you, maybe you won't be making such a fool of yourself the next time around.

The God of Irreducible Complexity
(Imaginary Interview)

“Hello, Austino; it’s time for more perplexity,
For I am now the God of Irreducible Complexity.”

“That you are, being the unmade All,
And so it shall become your downfall.”

“Eh? I’m never to be at all?”

“Your believers have given You some fine new clothes:
But Intelligent Design is falsely based, God knows,
On Irreducible Complexity—
So I still recognize You as the God of ID.”

“That I am is what I really am now.”

“Well, Darwin said long ago that his theory
Would break down if Irreducible Complexity
Were shown to be true, and yet
No proposal has ever stood up to the analysis.”

“Still, here I am, Mr. A, alive merely by possibility,
Myself indeed quite complex, even irreducibly,

“For “I am the be all and end all—the Prime Maker,
And so I keep tabs on every form and splinter
Of the Universe, planning its every constituent
That I designed. So then, simple I am NOT.

“Yes, man, I am an extremely complicated System,
Yet I have no parts, for then My parts that stemmed
Would be even more fundamental than Me!”

“Yes, ‘God’, if You existed you would surely be
Very very very complex, irreducibly so…”

“…So…”

“…So, by the Creationist Theory, such as it must be,
You cannot be explained except by a larger ID.”

“I’m falling…”

“…Into the hole that they dug for you.”

My question is - can the idea of irreducible complexity be interesting philosophically?

And also, philosophically speaking, can there be anything that is truly irreducibly complex? — Wheatley

I find the notion of irreducible complexity very similar to that of missing links - transitional fossils. Assuming evolution progressed from simplicity to complexity, there had to be intermediate stages that connected one life-form to another. I believe the bird-dinosaur intermediate stage was the Archaeopteryx.

Anyway, irreducible complexity makes the claim that there are no intermediary stages that lead up to, in this case, the bacterial flagellum which accordingly brings to question the soundness of the theory of evolution.

However, we must bear in mind the processes at work at the scale of a bacterial flagellum. In effect the flagellum is a proteinaceous structure probably composed of a handful of molecules. As far as I know, molecular interactions follow strict rules, especially at the levels at which the component molecules of a flagellum interact. A close approximation in my "opinion" is that it's all or none in nature i.e. either the component molecules of the flagellum fit to become a functional locomotory organ or not. That the molecules involved will alter gradually, through intermediate stages is out of the question. Ergo, irreducible complexity comes as part and parcel of evolution at the molecular level.

What is interesting though is transitional/intermediate stages in life-forms, far removed from the molecular level of evolution, the macroscopic phenotype. Here we see intermediate/transitional stages. I mentioned archaeopteryx. There's the lobed-fin fishes if I recall correctly. At this level, the missing links are clearly represented in the fossil records. These stages however are a result of irreducible complexity at the molecular level of evolution and this comes out of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry.

Personally speaking I like the original implications of irreducible complexity - intelligent design - because it would be amazing to discover what are veritable easter eggs left by (a) super-intelligent designer(s) in the code of the life that are clues to our origins, purpose, and destiny.

A good example of how irreducible complexity is different to missing links is our immune system. Antibodies against germs and their toxins aren't produced in gradual steps. To the contrary, the body deploys a vast array of possible antibodies, each synthesized as it is from scratch and whichever variant matches the germ/toxin is then amplified. Irreducible complexity but probably very similar to evolution at the molecular level.

I am not a believer in ID either, but I think the field is at least a required counter-balance to mainstream evolutionary science. — Devans99

So should we also have a cancer-denying field of study to counter-balance mainstream cancer research?

Materialism is just theology without God. — Wayfarer

Theology without a theos? I like that idea.

So should we also have a cancer-denying field of study to counter-balance mainstream cancer research?

No, but if we're going to take seriously the hypothesis that advanced aliens exist, we're going to have to take seriously the idea that ID might have taken place here. Ditto if we're serious about simulation theory.

Perhaps ironically, 'irreducible complexity' is - or ought to be - the null hypothesis of all evolutionary science. — StreetlightX

Do you mean that you were being ironic? No? OK then - well that simply doesn't work because the whole point of science is to break the reality into smaller and smaller bits in the attempt to better understand how the bits all work together to make the whole. Assuming that a system - at whatever level - is irreducibly complex, invalidates any further attempt to analyse that system. But its actually worse than that, because it really only depends on what level your looking at - the earth as an ecosystem, for example, is irreducibly complex in the sense that it could not have been any other way and still produce the exact variety of lifeforms and biological 'functionalities' as it currently has...but does that mean it must have been deliberately and intelligently created exactly as it is today?

Natural selection does not work teleologically - it merely filters out those that have a negative impact on survivability. Beyond that, more or less anything goes. So just because a particular arrangement of proteins etc. has a certain biological functionality in a particular organism now doesn't imply that the arrangement evolved for that purpose - it just means that the arrangement survived the evolutionary process to have that functionality now.

No, but if we're going to take seriously the hypothesis that advanced aliens exist, we're going to have to take seriously the idea that ID might have taken place here. Ditto if we're serious about simulation theory. — RogueAI

Well that's me off the hook then!

the whole point of science is to break the reality into smaller and smaller bits in the attempt to better understand how the bits all work together to make the whole. — Siti

Not in the slightest. The 'point of science' is to follow the evidence, and not make a priori assumptions as to what reality ought to be like.

As to the rest, I think any whiff of creationism is utter shit, so you're preaching to the choir. My point is simply that any scientific theory (evolutionary or otherwise), in order to remain scientific and not blind dogma, must be prepared to counternance it's being wrong, or open to future revision by new evidence. That's what a null hypothesis, taken seriously, is designed to guarantee. It's the thin wedge that keeps science from joining the ranks of religious fanatics. We don't counter creationism by absolutizing (existing) science, we do it by insisting ever more on it's irreducible grounding in empiricism.

My point was simply to 'co-opt' IC for science, and to show that taking it seriously does not in the slightest put one on the side of creationists.

What do you mean "off the hook"?

Not in the slightest. The 'point of science' is to follow the evidence, and not make a priori assumptions as to what reality ought to be like. — StreetlightX

How can "irreducible complexity" be anything other than an a priori assumption? Scientists are not sleuths - its not a "crime scene" where evidence is "followed" - scientists are collectors of data and the "null hypothesis" should be the assumption that nothing extraordinary (i.e. 'supernatural') is going on because to assume otherwise is to pull the metaphysical rug from under the methodologically naturalistic feet upon which the scientific method stands. To admit irreducible complexity is to admit fundamental inexplicability - and if some things are fundamentally unexplainable, then the whole scientific enterprise is flawed because it is based on the assumption that the world is fundamentally explainable if only we could find the explanations.

What do you mean "off the hook"? — RogueAI

I mean since I do not take simulation theory or the idea that earth-bound biology was somehow "engineered" by advanced aliens seriously, I have no requirement to take intelligent design seriously.

the "null hypothesis" should be the assumption that nothing extraordinary (i.e. 'supernatural') is going on — Siti

No. The null hypothesis is that nothing is going on at all. It has nothing to do with the supernatural, and nothing to do with the 'extraordinary'. That one's theory explains nothing at all is indeed an assumption, an assumption that all science must take seriously without which it gives up its right to call itself science at all. That science doesn't simply admit any theory with a semblence of correlation and is littered with the dead bodies of empty theories which have all attempted to claim explanatory relavence is among it's chief acheivements.

Supplementally, it is not within science's remit to decide beforehand whether or not the universe is amenable to it. Don't confuse science with a crude scientism. But that's another debate.

No. The null hypothesis is that nothing is going on at all. It has nothing to do with the supernatural, and nothing to do with the 'extraordinary'. That one's theory explains nothing at all is indeed an assumption, an assumption that all science must take seriously without which it gives up its right to call itself science at all. — StreetlightX

I think you're missing my point here. The assumption of ID and irreducible complexity is that there exists a teleological relationship between biological structure and functionality (i.e. it is 'made' like that to serve that 'purpose' - and assuming that we are not ascribing creative intentionality to prebiotic systems or microbiological lifeforms I can only assume that such teleological directedness is imagined to be supernatural) - such an assumption cannot be a null hypothesis. The correct null hypothesis is that no such relationship exists and that the evolution of form and functionality is a random walk - I don't see any compelling reason to reject the null hypothesis so far - do you?

It is not possible to tell either way whether the universe is amenable to science or not. All we can do is try to do science to it or not, and if we do try, see if that’s making any progress yet or not. To assume it is not amenable is to not try, and to try is to at least tacitly assume it is amenable. Seeing progress made never tells us that progress can indefinitely continue to be made, but conversely failing to make progress can never tell us that making progress is impossible, only that it’s difficult. When we hit such a roadblock, the choice is ours whether to continue trying or to give up. The world itself can’t tell us in unambiguous language whether we should keep at it or not, only how well we’re doing so far. Whether to keep at it, to assume that further progress either is or isn’t possible, is up to us to decide.