Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Irreducible Simplicity

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This editorial opinion reminded me of a conversation I was having with a colleague the other day about how completely misunderstood the concept of Irreducible Complexity can be to some people. When folks hear the word “complexity” they naturally assume the concept applies only to complex systems – such as the New York City economic system referenced in the article. In his example, the author claims IC is “an empty idea” because removing one business from the NYC economy does not render it non functional as IC predicts. Silly man.

Viewing IC through the blinders of an extremely complex system that in fact is not IC to begin with and using that as a demonstration that IC is bogus is of course bogus itself. This is probably why Behe chose the mousetrap as a simple example of IC. But even the mousetrap was “controversial” to my colleague, so I thought of an even simpler example.

Do you remember when we were all young and mom used a “clothes pin” to attach wet laundry to a clothes line? Two properly shaped sticks and a spring. Even my skeptical friend had to agree it was Irreducibly Complex. But he’s still struggling with the improbability of the two sticks carving themselves into just the right shape and leaping into the spring by accident of nature.

Comments
MacDaddy wrote: "The rest was just to show that you could get from the simpler one piece to the more complex three piece and the intermediaries still had the same function as well." No changes from the stick to the clothes pin happened randomly. All were intelligently designed.Red Reader
February 12, 2006
February
02
Feb
12
12
2006
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PST
This all misses the point of the original post - that people tend to confuse complexity with IC, and when they notice that something complex still works when they remove a part they leap to the wrong conclusion that IC is an empty idea. Using the clothespin as an example was just to make the point with a little added humor. We all know it isn't a perfect example... :)dougmoran
February 10, 2006
February
02
Feb
10
10
2006
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PST
I feel your pain, jared.Scott
February 10, 2006
February
02
Feb
10
10
2006
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PST

Where can one go to talk about issues with people who have actually read Dembski's and Behe's works?

SycophantsAreUs.com Personally I'd rather talk to people who haven't read Dembski or Behe yet have independently arrived at the same conclusions. I've read very little of the popular literature from ID theorists including Mike and Bill. Presented with the same data I've simply arrived at similar conclusions. There's no greater compliment I can give their thinking than to say it mirrors my own. They both write better than me though which is a constant source of envy. :-) -ds jaredl
February 10, 2006
February
02
Feb
10
10
2006
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PST

Crandaddy said:

Just like there’s no evidence of any kind to indicate that the magnitude of a fully functional automobile’s complexity poses any sort of barrier to an origin through a tornado ripping through a junkyard full of spare parts. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, after all.

But isn't that a bad analogy? The tornado doesn't have welders, riveters, paint sprayers and the like. The universe's designer would have equipped the universe with the necessary tools right? Isn't ID saying that if you can prove that the tools don't exist than you can prove that the airplane couldn't have been random?

Okay. Maybe that wasn't the best analogy. Let's play with cards instead. The tornado part still applies.--CrandaddyArtist in training
February 10, 2006
February
02
Feb
10
10
2006
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PST
Doug, My point wasn't quite clear in that I was showing that the three part clothespin is not irreducibly complex in that the one part (split stick) performs the same function. From IC revisited page 3 "To say that a core is irreducible is to say that no other systems with susbstantially simpler cores can perform the system's basic function." I should have made clear that the earlier version was the split stick (lower left in the Smithsonian picture) The rest was just to show that you could get from the simpler one piece to the more complex three piece and the intermediaries still had the same function as well. As for trashing clothespins, I did that too, and my mother countered by going back to a simpler clothespin that I had to use in its entirety rather than just part of. She eventually solved the problem by making me hang up the laundry.MacDaddy
February 10, 2006
February
02
Feb
10
10
2006
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PST
I posted this in another thread... it applies here: "it remains established that the IC core of these machines having evolved via indirect Darwinian pathways is so rediculously improbable that it’s effectively impossible. Please take a look at this paper: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf "Scott
February 10, 2006
February
02
Feb
10
10
2006
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PST
I read somewhere else that the two part, flat-bottom paper Dixie cup is another good example of IC, though technically, it might be possible to manufacture a similar design based on a single piece of paper. Either case would illustrate the issue of how the constituent parts were produced, i.e. by a mechanized factory employing comprehensive engineering design. Best Regardsbenkeshet
February 10, 2006
February
02
Feb
10
10
2006
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PST

Granting dougmoran's point that the clothespin is IC, MacDaddy's parable of its origin seems becomes a good example of how something putatively irreducibly complex (the modern clothespin) could nevertheless have arisen via a series of local, potentially beneficial modifications - in otherwords, an example of an IC structure that could have evolved (figuratively speaking, of course). It shows that "irreducibly complex" and "unevolvable" are not the same thing.

Of course you all realize that one skin cell from an astronaut is more complex than Cape Canaveral and all the space shuttles combined. Using a clothespin as an example of IC has its limitations as an analogy to the real issue. -ds

insouciant
February 10, 2006
February
02
Feb
10
10
2006
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PST
"But by using scientific terminology and big words, he comes off as knowing what he’s talking about to those who don’t understand IC and are not scientists." All most people have to do to convince people nowadays is to either be the most educated or act the most educated. You don't need to know any more than the other guy does, you just need to fluff it up to confirm their uninformed beliefs or sway them by overpowering them intellectually, employing strawmen arguments by the bundle. It's sad how many teachers/scientists are doing this to this generation of students.jasonng
February 10, 2006
February
02
Feb
10
10
2006
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PST

MacDaddy,

Let's consider your example of a primitive wooden wedge that dominated the clothespin environment early in laundry history. This is a three-part marvel of human enginuity fashioned from a single piece of dead wood. Remove any one of it's parts and it no longer functions as a clothespin. The two wooden pieces making up the "fingers" of the clothespin are connected at their apex by a wooden spring cut from the same material. What a briliant design by some out-of-the-box thinker who realized that the wood itself would make a great spring... unless overstressed and forced to split down the middle.

But then iron is discovered, steel invented, and springs spring forth. Our deep thinker now realizes there is a better spring for clothespins that won't fail when overextended, and indeed will transform the wedge into a clamp. And by the way this is long before rubber bands were even a sparkle in our hero inventor's eyes. So with a swipe of his pencil and a basket of enginuity our Designer creates a whole new system. Realizing that it won't function unless all of it's parts are present, he also designs a factory to cut the parts to his specifications and assemble them as he intended. Part of his quality control process is to ensure that all of the parts are there and that they have been assembled correctly. For without all the necessary components and the assembly instructions, he has no clothespin.

But all that isn't really required to demonstrate IC. Just ask my mom. Every time I borrowed one finger of wood from one clothespin for my own "projects", mom complained profusely. Not because the clothes pin didn't function as good as the others with a complete parts count. Rather, mom would tell you that the damn thing didn't work at all. It was a useless stick and spring. Toss them into a bucket with the rest of the clothespins I ruined, shake them up for a good long time, and let's see how many assemble themselves and make mom happy again.

The example stands. Without profoundly intelligent intent, the clothespin my mom used would not have come to be, and would remain a useless heap of steel and wood unless all parts were designed correctly, present and accounted for, not to mention assembled correctly.

You might want to check out http://www.smithsonianlegacies.si.edu/objectdescription.cfm?ID=1
to see a bit of history about clothespins. There are hundreds of patents on this technology. It might be interesting to survey the patents and see how many are actualy irreducibly complex. For example, I notice one that has a figurine of a civil war hero attached to one of the fingers. If you remove the figurine, does the remaining device still function as a clothespin? If so, that particular design is not IC.

dougmoran
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PST
"Well, no…a simple split stick was likely the original clothes-pin. Can’t get much more reduced than that. No, wait…yes you can, if your sole purpose is to dry clothes. Just spread them out over a nice bush; I’ve done that many times while camping." Not to nitpick, but a clothespin is not a drying device, but a fastener. It's function is to pinch cloth around a piece of wire tightly enough that the fabric doesn't slip. The clothespin does not dry anything and functions just as well on rainy days as it does on sunny days.russ
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PST
Doug, Interesting post but there is a slight problem with your clothespin analogy. Old fashioned clothespins (the kind your mother probably used as a child were made of one piece of wood with a slit in it. These could be made a little better by wrapping a rubber band around them, it made them a little stiffer and able to hold on better. If you now break the center piece of wood at the top end you have two pieces of wood with a spring (rubber band) at the center which is basically the modern clothespin. Sorry but that is not a good example of irreducible complexity.MacDaddy
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PST
"In fact, there is no evidence of any kind to indicate that the magnitude of a system’s complexity poses any sort of barrier to an origin through evolution, as opposed to an origin through design by an intelligent agent." Just like there's no evidence of any kind to indicate that the magnitude of a fully functional automobile's complexity poses any sort of barrier to an origin through a tornado ripping through a junkyard full of spare parts. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, after all. ;)crandaddy
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PST
Russ: I agree & it's hard to believe he's an MD & professor.dougmoran
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PST
But by using scientific terminology and big words, he comes off as knowing what he's talking about to those who don't understand IC and are not scientists.russ
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PST
"Even my skeptical friend had to agree it was Irreducibly Complex." Well, no...a simple split stick was likely the original clothes-pin. Can't get much more reduced than that. No, wait...yes you can, if your sole purpose is to dry clothes. Just spread them out over a nice bush; I've done that many times while camping.BuzzK
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PST

Leave a Reply