Irreducible complexity is evidence of design.

There are very clear definitions for Irreducible Complexity. 1. Behe: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." 2. Behe: (Evolutionary definition) "An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway." 3. Dembski: "A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system."1 I have thus proceeded to show, by these definitions, that irreducibly complex systems *can* in fact be explained by some other processes other than design. The Pentachlorophenol compound, for example, is irreducibly complex, however, it is certainly not evidence of ID, as the theory of evolution can easily explain it. The resolution states that "IC is not evidence of design" and so I have shown that although something is irreducibly complex, it does not make design evident. My opponent has done nothing but to accuse me that by showing an evolutionary pathway to anything, I am reducing the complexity, therefore the example I have given is not irreducibly complex. However, this accusation is false as the criteria for IC have been strictly set by its proponents to mean something along the lines of indivisibility. Something is "irreducibly complex" if it is: [refer to the definitions as quoted above]. It must be said that my opponent's decision to define IC as "anything we cannot explain" does nothing for the point of this debate. If we wish to pursue this matter scientifically, we must realise that ID is not an alternative to evolution. My opponent said: "Thats the point. I am arguing here; that, were such a thing found, it could not have evolved naturally and *must be* evidence of design." [emphasis mine] This incorrectly assumes that if evolution is disproven, intelligent design is the only possible explanation. The fallacy of false dichotomy is blatantly committed. The Intelligent Design camp must also not fail to take into consideration the things which *are* indeed reducibly complex. If the definition of IC is as you have suggested, then surely they have set themselves in an unfalsifiable position -- let's ignore everything that is reducible, but do a victory dance whenever we find an irreducibly complex system. The whole argument reduces to a classic "God [or Intelligent Designer] of the Gaps". In other words, "if we can't explain this system by evolution then it has to be designed." But a truly scientifically valid piece of evidence for ID would not merely thrive upon the gaps of the evolutionary theory. It should at the very least seek to explain how, when, what or why. So if the definition of IC is as ID proponents have proposed, I have demonstrated that IC can indeed come about by undirected processes, therefore IC simply does not suffice as evidence of design. However, if the definition of IC is as my opponent proposes, then this debate loses all that it is worth. I have no real issue with his position, howbeit we are thrown back at square one, in which IC is merely an argument from incredulity or ignorance. In which case, we might as well be but compelled to the conclusion that, IC is, in point of fact, evidence for nothing at all. Footnotes ------- 1. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. William Dembski pp. 285