Richard Thompson and I used the term “irreducible complexity” In our 1984 publication Origins.
“Looking at the complex phenomena that confront any observer of the universe, scientists have decided to try a reductionistic approach. They say, ‘Let’s try to reduce everything to measurements and try to explain them by simple universal laws.’ But there is no logical reason for ruling out in advance alternative strategies for comprehending the universe, strategies that might involve laws and principles of irreducible complexity.” (p. 4) Drutakarma Dasa (Michael A. Cremo), Bhutatma Dasa (Austin Gordon), and Sadaputa Dasa (Richard L. Thompso) 1984. Origins: Higher Dimensions in Science. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. 64 page magazine size pamphlet.
We also wrote (p. 58): “Having failed to reduce complex things to simple principles, the scientist now has two choices. First, he can simply stop,saaying these things exist but we can say nothing more about them. Second, he can go forward by searching for principles suitably complex to have generated the irreducible complexity he observes.”
Just before that (p. 58) we reference Elsasser: “Reviewing the conclusions of his own investigations, prominent biologist Walter M. Elsasser states that the complex biochemical forms of living organisms are ‘of a primary and irreducible type of natural order, on the same level as the more conventional laws of nature.”
–Walter M. Elsasser. A form of logic suited for biology. Progress in Theoretical Biology vol 6, 1981, p. 57.
All leaves us wondering: Given the paucuity of the end result (now even Darwin’s finches have lost their sacred relic status), how much research into evolution has been efforts to keep Darwinism alive on cardiac bypass/life support, and how much had anything to do with life sciences as such?
Follow UD News at Twitter!