Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 3

message: Removed some apparently superfluous words, removed comment on systems theory (irrelevant?) removed extremely POV text for a reference, moved apparently unreferenced reference into additional references. 124.243.178.110 03:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your changes as I feel that they blur the line between scientifically valid irreducible complexity and the religious usurpation of the term.  I suggest that, in the future, people who are actually educated in systems science keep a close eye on this article so that the line is kept distinct.-Psychohistorian 11:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reverting each other without real discussion is not the right way to edit a controversial article like this.  Please stop this edit war.  I am restoring the article to the wording from before the start of the edit war.  The disputed wording can be seen in this diff.  Please discuss the changes and reach consensus here before changing the article again.  If the edit war continues, the page may have to be protected from editing.  I would rather that we not reach that point.  Let's discuss the issues civilly.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An edit war doesn't begin until, at least, someone reverts someone else's content.  So, the article is now at the state it was before the edit war (except for the link to Behe which is outside of the debate).  Other than that, I agree that further changes on the article on this subject need to be discussed before the edits are made.-Psychohistorian 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As stated in policy, "the term [describes] two or more contributors' repeated reverts of one another's edits to an article".  As I said, the edit war didn't start until the first reversion.-Psychohistorian 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for sharing your take on edit-warring.  Now, let's try to get something clear: This article is part of the Intelligent Design series, a series about a controversial form of creationism masquerading as science.  If you wish to babble on about IC in some other discipline, create a disambig page and an article on your version of IC (assuming you can find any sources that meet WP:V, WP:RS and don't violate WP:NOR).  Capisce?  •Jim62sch• 00:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, what am I suppossed to discusss?  FeloniousMonk is ignorant of systems science if he thinks pointing out that the concept of irreducible complexity, as used in systems science, is valid is a 'whitewash' of the religous argument.  There are countless websites where he can go to educate himself on this subject.  I did a web search and the very first site I hit was this one.  So, its not like its hard to educate yourself.  I'm not going to let this issue be ignored.  I will edit it back after 24 hours.  I'm not going to let the current article, which is based on flagrant ignorance, remain the way it is. -Psychohistorian 18:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reviewing the change, it appears to me that the core thesis of your edit is that "irreducible complexity" had a meaning independent of the "religious argument" which you attribute to Behe.  Presumably, that meaning must have pre-dated Behe.  Yet the first line of article you cite asserts that Behe coined the phrase and discusses the concept only in the context of Behe's assertions.  My own google search for irreducible complexity failed to turn up any relevant hits in any context other than the one discussed in this article.  I remain confused.  Rossami (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt that it is you who are confused.  •Jim62sch• 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of "irreducible complexity" being used outside of teleology  indicating the distinction I've tried to make in this article between the two uses of the concept.-Psychohistorian 18:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for providing that. It shows that the notion of complexities that are irreducible is used outside of the ID debate, a notion that is alreadly known, not challenged and may warrant mention here. But it does not in any way prove that Behe's notion Irreducible Complexity, that complexity requires a designer, is accepted by mainstream scientists and educators, something we need to be careful to avoid implying. FeloniousMonk 18:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "..something we need to be careful to avoid implying."  And, I feel, my original edit (the one which you reverted and which started this issue) did a good job of  avoiding doing that.-Psychohistorian 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. This article is about Irreducible Complexity, the lynchpin argument in ID's argument for the existence of God, not the notion in Systems theory that systems can be distilled only so far. Your change to the intro was appropriate to the Systems theory article, not an ID article. Now you can add those changes to this article's Forerunners subsection of the History section where IC's relation to systems theory is detailed, or you could create a separate 'Irreducible complexity (systems theory)' article for it, or you create a section addressing IC, systems theory in the existing Systems theory article, but altering an article about an ID concept to read about systems theory is not going to fly. FeloniousMonk 19:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is called "Irreducible complexity".  It is -not- called "Irreducible complexity as used by Behe et al".  If it were called that, you'd have a point.  If it were called that, I wouldn't be making my objection.-Psychohistorian 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is titled "Irreducible complexity" but it is not necessarily supposed to cover all uses of that term or variations of that concept.  By convention here on Wikipedia, when an article's title may refer to more than one topic the unadorned title is given to the most common or popular usage.  All other topics get a "disambiguation" title.  The disambiguation is usually shown by putting the subject area after the title in parentheses - Pagename (subject area).  If you want to change the focus of the page to be first on the systems theory concept, we would have to be able to show that most readers searching on this term would be looking for the systems theory concept rather than for Behe's concept.  Based on the evidence I can find, I doubt that's the case.  I would endorse Felonious' suggestion.  Improve the article's existing Forerunners section with a deeper discussion of the systems theory concept and provide an appropriate link to a more detailed article on systems theory for those who want to explore in that direction.  By the way, it would be helpful if you found a better cite than the one above.  I have to admit that I wasn't very impressed by the paper's intellectual rigor.  Just as a quick example, in Section 2 the authors attempt to define "systems thinking".  Their definition is summed up in a sentence in the second paragraph which reads "We take systems thinking to be make up of the beliefs and perspectives embodied by the disciplines and practices that claim to embody systems thinking."  That kind of circular reasoning seriously undercut my opinion of their credibility.  Rossami (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the edit that has been disputed, you'll see that it is a very brief tap on the shoulder of systems science before going on to explain that intelligent design proponents use it in another way and explaining the difference between the two uses.  It acts as a brief disambiguation.-Psychohistorian 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I was not aware that consensus was ever reached.  Just letting the issue drop is not consensus.-Psychohistorian 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon? •Jim62sch• 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Id respond if I knew what you are finding hard to understand.-Psychohistorian 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you noticed to which project this page belongs? •Jim62sch• 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages can belong to many projects.  There is no doubt that one definition of IC is related to Creationism.  But there is also no doubt that another definition - the definition which has merit in the scientific community - does not. -Psychohistorian 11:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because noone is disputing this content any longer and no consensus has been reached regarding whether to put it in the article, I'll be restoring the disputed content. -Psychohistorian 11:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether to add the proper definition of irreducible complexity

message: For the editors of this page. This linkis a statement by the American Society for Microbiology on Evolution and also mentions irreducible complexity. It may be of use as a supporting reference in the article.--LexCorp 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, depending on how and where you were planning on using it.  The key sentence is this The use of the supposed "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum as an argument to endow nonscientific concepts with what appears to be legitimacy, is spurious and not based on fact.  In other words, it is debunking the intelligent design concept of irreducible complexity.  •Jim62sch• 13:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by the American Society for Microbiology on Evolution 

message: The article currently contains the sentence:
On some occasions, structures once believed to be irreducibly complex, have later been explained biologically.
This doesn't make sense as the system, whether irreducibly complex or not, is biological either way. Hackwrench 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical sentence 

message: I feel that there is one section missing in the criticism department - an argument put forward by Dawkins, Bennet and many others:
IC used as an argument for an "ultimate" designer inevitable results in an infinite regress. The ID model is a top-down construction with something more complex creating something less complex: i.e man designs watch, god designs man. However, you are then left with the question of who designed god, and then who designed the designer who designed god etc.. In short, you'll have an infinite regress of irreducibly complex designers. If you on the other hand accept that the designer can be more simple than the item designed, well, then you've shot down your own theory. 
Given that it's called "intelligent" design, it is implied that the designer is not a simple entity, but a very complex one - much more complex than the entities it has designed. Thus if the design by such a designer is irreducibly complex, then the designer must be irreducibly complex and according to their own theory must have a designer.
Any objections to adding a subsection to the criticism section explaining this argument?
--Denoir 10:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. It's a notable arguement. However, I'd be inclined to put it somewhat low on the page: The scientific rebuttal should come before the philosophic. Adam Cuerden talk 15:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinite regress 

message: The ruling in the Dover trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)  discredited IC as a method and the claims of both Behe and his peers that it is a meaningful and useful tool. An accurate and complete article needs to reflect this. I've noted this in the article and added cites to the relevant parts of the Dover trial ruling: , FeloniousMonk 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your personal interpretation of the Dover trial. Personal interpretation may not be written in wikipedia articles (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR). You may write opinions discussed in relevant sources, if you source them and if you qualify them with the name of the person who represents these opinions; if it is not something all sides of a controversial topic agree upon. --Rtc 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly. Read the ruling. FeloniousMonk 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, you're way over the WP:3RR limit. FeloniousMonk 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not try to spread the false claim that I hit 3RR limit; I did not. I added the source in a different way, without giving a personal interpretation of the court's opinion. The court did not rule that IC is discredited; and even if it had done that doesn't give you permission to claim in Wikipedia that it's actually discredited.--Rtc 19:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not revert blindly, but see that A) I added the source, just in a different way. B) I added some improvements, such as removing weasel words, C) I added some sources, such as the Adami paper. --Rtc 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, please do not edit war. I see you were blocked for violating 3RR, so please use the time off to reconsider how you intend to contribute here. FeloniousMonk 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of IC 

message: The rationale of a lock and key pairs in nature and irreducible complexity are addressed demonstrating the weakness of this notion.
Science 7 April 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 61 - 63 EVOLUTION:Reducible ComplexityChristoph Adami*,
Science 7 April 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 97 - 101 Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation Jamie T. Bridgham, Sean M. Carroll, Joseph W. Thornton* ristoph Adami* GetAgrippa 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Science article disproving reasoning of ID irreducible complexity

message: Doesn't the example of an arch actually helps the case that irreducible complexity leads to a designer because people and likely engineers (intelligent designers) have to make the scaffolding, put it up, and build the arch?--Jorfer 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arch Example 

message: I'm a newcomer to this, so could someone more familiar with Wikipedia clarify something for me.
Is Wikipedia, even a "discussion" page, the proper place to debate a "controversial" issue?
Undoubtedly, a discussion page is the proper place to debate whether the Wikipedia entry is following the standards of Wikipedia for things like proper attribution for statements, whether it is presenting all sides in a controversial issue, whether it is biassed. My question is whether it is also considered appropriate to debate with the expert opinions cited in the main entry.
TomS TDotO 17:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, no, we are not supposed to debate the issue ourselves, merely to summarize and fairly present the debate.  The challenge is that we must abide by the principle of NPOV which includes a requirement that our presentation of minority opinions be in proportion to how minor they really are.  That can be difficult to sort out and often requires a lot of discussion.  We also sometimes have to have discussions that look like we are debating the issue when in fact we are trying to educate each other on specific points in order to jointly write the best possible article.  Rossami (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about controversial issues in Wikipedia 

message: A simple curious question:  has anyone ever tried to make a case for viruses as irreducibly complex?
From what I know of Behe he hasn't, but he seems to focus on molecular subsystems and not complete
organisms (the term "complete organism" being admittedly inexact with a virus).
However, viruses are pretty minimal and it's hard to remove much from them to leave something that 
works.  So why wouldn't they be considered IRC?  I have a suspicion that they have been avoided by 
Behe and his colleagues because the assertion that they are degenerate descendants of self-reproducing 
organisms is a bit too easy to believe (even though nobody has much more than speculations about how it 
happened), demonstrating "scaffolding" in action.  MrG 4.227.253.241 20:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say you probably answered your own question pretty well :)  Guettarda 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Discussions of IRC seem to be restricted to a few "set pieces". In the world of life, only a few bodily functions or organs. As you point out, complete organisms (including viruses in this category) are not. But also larger patterns, such as the decidedly complex patterns of interactions between organisms (offspring with progenitors, predator and prey, ecology in general), patterns of the history and geography of life, and taxonomy (the "tree of life"). To address this here on Wikipedia, I think, at length would violate the policy "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought"  in Attribution. I would be happy to discuss this in the Newsgroup talk.origins. TomS TDotO 19:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viruses as IRC 

message: The definition section begins with:
:: The term "irreducible complexity" was originally defined by Behe as:
:: "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
Clearly, irreducible complexity is not a system; it is a term which applies to a system. The definition should be changed accordingly, no? Korossyl 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Applying to" 

message: Shouldn't this page be entitled "Irreducible Complexity: A Criticism" or something similar? It is so ridiculous an article like this can make it onto an 'encyclopedia'. It is so obviously not neutral and intent on giving equal argument to both sides. There have been just as many arguments made on both sides of the fence (regardless of how good or bad they are) as to the validity of irreducible complexity. This page lists all of the arguments against irreducible complexity, but virtually NOTHING of the main arguments for the theory and in response to its objections. It is not current. The objections are familiar but no mention of the equally familiar responses to the arguments and counter-responses. Again, it does not matter how good the responses are. It matter that they are expressed, because this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a blog for anti ID people. This page contributes to academic ignorance because instead of telling the arguments given by both sides, it only lists those of anti-ID people and claims that "nevertheless, it continues to be popular among proponents of ID".
Here is some CLEAR INSTANCES of outright bias in this article:
(1) The history section is biased. The way Behe proposed his theory did not indicate in any sense whatsoever that it was an argument for God's existence. The actual content of his argument is completely different than the classic teleological argument. Also, what business does "Jacques Monod's Chance and Necessity provides a good discussion of the "triumph" of the mechanistic view in biochemistry." have in this section? This is not neutral or informative. It's a suggestion that the mechanistic view of biochemistry is correct, and there is no hint of a response to Monod's work.
(2) The origins section only reveals the criticism of Behe. It says critics argue that irreducibly complex systems can be evolved (+1), argues against one of Behe's claims made in 1996 and only intended in 1996 (+2), and states the anti-ID response of the judge at the Dover trial (+3). Proponents of ID have offered many, many responses to these criticisms yet the section ends here with NO SPACE for the other side.
(3) The examples of irreducible complexity are only explained and then CRITICIZED, without any space given to responses to these criticisms. (save one sentence) In the blood cotting case, the argument for it is not even explained! Yet they go onto criticize it and suprise suprise, do not explain Behe's response. In the eye case, as least one sentence is given to Behe's response, but the section overall is just as bad and misleading. Behe does not think that this evidence proposes any help to the Darwinist trying to explain it, and again the bulk of his argument for why the eye is irreducibly complex is absent where the vast majority is given to criticisms. The flagellum section is perhaps the most ridiculous because only criticisms are given, and NO MENTION of ID responses despite the numerous treatment of the subject by them and those specific criticisms for YEARS. Even if you do not agree with the responses and arguments for it, they still need to be here!
(4) It gets no more obvious than this. After this follows five full-blown sections of criticism of IC, and NO SPACE given to ID responses and arguments for IC, despite that they have been given in many available mediums for years. It doesn't get any more obvious than that.
It seems the verdict is clear: this page is OBVIOUSLY biased and FAR FROM neutral (I am astonished that it does not say the neutrality is disputed). I don't want a pro-IC page, I want a neutral one, and that is possible.
If this page does not change I am going to create another that is truly neutral (maybe like an encyclopedia?????) and make hell for this article every chance I get because it is basically a cleverly disguised anti-ID blog. Whoever runs this site will be able to easily tell from what I've said that this is far from neutral.
Takumi4G63 09:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this article is not even close to neutral