2005

Mark Perakh, "Beyond suboptimality. Why irreducible complexity does not imply intelligent design" (2005)

Talk Reason; http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Suboptimal.cfm ----------------- Michael Behe's concept of the irreducible complexity (IC) of molecular assemblies in biological cells has been touted by intelligent design (ID) advocates as allegedly strong evidence for ID. In fact, a concept identical in all but name with Behe's IC has been around for a long time before Behe. Professional biologists have overwhelmingly rejected Behe's notion as contrary to the evidence, showing that irreducibly complex molecular systems could have evolved via "Darwinian" evolutionary path with a high likelihood. In this essay Mark Perakh approaches the problem from an angle different from that utilized by biologists. He argues that the notion according to which IC implies ID is contrary to logic. IC systems, by definition, are unreliable, so if they are designed, this points to an inept designer. Perakh further argues that in this case we deal not just with the problem of suboptimal design but with a case where the putative designer delberately designed systems in a way making them easily vulnerable to accidental damage. Perakh concludes that if biological systems are indeed IC this more reasonably can be construed as an argument against inteligent design.