Ken Miller’s Embarrassing Attempt to Disprove Irreducible Complexity

by Max Andrews

This video has been out for a while but I just saw it reposted on a blog I saw through Twitter.  I’m not going to summarize the video here; rather, just give it a quick watch, it’s only two minutes.

Honestly, it’s a bit embarrassing and I feel bad for him.  His attempt to disprove irreducible complexity demonstrates that 1) he doesn’t actually understand it or 2) displaces the information. When he changed the mousetrap to function as a tie clip that tie clip then becomes a new mechanism.  Whether that tie clip was actually irreducibly complex or not doesn’t matter.  His attempt would be correct if he could remove or change a part of the mouse trap while keeping it’s function as a mouse trap.

As for the scholarship of intelligent design and irreducible complexity, he’s simply incorrect there as well.  Darwinists always do this and it’s just annoying and dishonest (or simply wrong).  For a list of peer-reviewed articles that have been published in regards to intelligent design and irreducible complexity (and yes, the words are used in the articles, sorry Ken) please see the Discovery Institute’s list.


3 Responses to “Ken Miller’s Embarrassing Attempt to Disprove Irreducible Complexity”

  1. “His attempt would be correct if he could remove or change a part of the mouse trap while keeping it’s function as a mouse trap.”

    You’re approaching the example he used from a teleological point of view and missing the point Miller is making. There is no pre-conceived mouse catching function involved when all that exists is the spring/plate combination.

    Genetic sequences can be conserved over time as long as the proteins they code for and the resulting phenotypic expression serve *any* purpose.

    So as long as ‘holding ties’ is useful to an organism the sequence for the plate/spring ‘tie clip’ combination would be conserved in a genome. At this point ‘catching mice’ does not figure in the processes.

    If over time the species environment changes to one in which a new function, ‘catching mice’, becomes more beneficial then the selection pressures on the genome will change.

    Now if genetic changes occur that would allow the structure to be re-purposed from holding ties to catching mice they will tend to be conserved in the gene pool. If all goes well (for that species) the ‘mouse trap’ genetic sequence will spread and the organisms will thrive in their new environment.

    The key concept is that the environment changes over time. The ability to catch mice need not have been useful during most of the species history when the parts of the mouse trap were evolving. Natural selection has billions of experiments to work on, and has proved very successful at re-using existing features to solve new problems.

  2. these “peer reviewed” articles have been thoroughly discredited. the link follows.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: