Talk:Irreducible complexity

From SkepticWiki

epepke: Now that images are available, perhaps you'd like to add some?

_________________________________

Would you mind if I rewrote this almost completely?

The eye should have an article to itself, like all the other things the woos say can't have evolved. I think there's already a piece on how they cherry-pick Darwin on the eye). Then in this article, we just link to the eye as an example of something irreducibly complex the evolution of which can be well explained.

I thinks the choice of counterexamples is very poor. It is possible to exhibit examples of irreducible complexity which we [i]know[/i] to have evolved. We do not need the analogy of man-made arches; nor do I quite see the relevance of tadpoles and frogs.

There are, in short, much better arguments, and I hope that it won't put your nose out of joint if I substitute them.

Your attack on poor Paley is unjust and uncalled for. He deserves more serious consideration, and as I find his works are available on line, I think I'll give him some.

--- Dr A.

[edit] Suggestion

Add a profile of Paley on the people page. Add a section on Favorite Arguments of Creationists Write an article on the evolution of the eye.

_____________________________________________________

Well, yes, but that still leaves the problem that (IMHO) the rebuttal to the "irreducibly complex things can't evolve" argument is, as it stands, rather weak. Can you imagine what hay a fundie would make of it? I can.

--- Dr A.