Evolution: Irreducible Complexity?

by sarahlynn24

I was taught that the complexity of life must mean there is a creator. I was very familiar with the argument, “You wouldn’t find a watch in the desert and assume it formed itself. Its complexity shows there was a watchmaker.”

I loved this argument as a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) because it exemplified what seemed obvious: design necessitates a designer. The problem with the analogy is that a watch has no mechanism to form or change itself, whereas a reproducing organism does. Chemistry, math, and natural selection offer a way for life to form and change, and comparing that to the creation of inanimate objects is irrelevant.

Eyes and bacterial flagellum are two examples of complex structures that many YECs have claimed are irreducibly complex (i.e. only functional in their current complex state and evolutionarily pointless/non-functioning if any one part is removed). However, I no longer find these claims to be convincing. Below are some articles and videos explaining why.

**Please do not take offense or insult at parts of these videos or articles, it is not meant that way. I use these links only for the informational content they contain.**

 

Detailed description of eye evolution can be found here (1).

Here is an article about the evolution of the eye and bacterial flagellum (2).

Here’s a list of the stages of flagellar evolution (3).

Here is another article about flagellum and irreducibility in general (4).

Here is an animation of flagellar evolution (5).

Also, just a thought: Is not simplicity, rather than complexity, the sign of a good designer? My dad makes many amazing solar tracking devices out of old bike tires and rebar, and he usually says the simpler design is best. He’d often quote the “KISS Principle” to me as a child: “Keep it simple, silly” he’d say. Of course I’m fascinated by the complexity of life, and maybe there’s just no simpler way to do it. But sometimes, like when trying to diagnose and treat medical issues, the complexity can seem a little unnecessary. Like this image of metabolic pathways:

So perhaps, sometimes, the complexity of biology is not actually a compliment to its designer? Just a thought.

So “Irreducible Complexity” as an argument for YEC failed to convince me. Complexity isn’t irreducible, and some complex things don’t seem like the truly best design.

Footnotes

(1). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

(2). http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/node/10

(3). http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

(4). http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

(5). http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/isnt-it-true-bacterial-flagellum-could-not-have-evolved