This is an argument I hear quite a bit, that life had to be designed because it’s irreducibly complex. Usually it’s made about single cells. If you take any one part away, the cell ceases to function. So, intentionally designed and made because it ceases to function without all the parts in place.
Well, fine.
The trouble I’m having with it is you can make that argument with virtually every living system you see once it’s reached maturity, but we know it’s a load of rubbish.
If, for instance, I was to take myself (or any one of you) and start pulling out major structures, you’d cease to function. If I removed your heart, or brain, or kidneys, you’d keel over and die. Even if I took simpler structures such as your arm, and began removing things from it, the arm would cease to function properly.
Yet, we know neither me nor you nor anyone else popped into the world as is. We all started the same way, except maybe for those human/alien hybrid clones being grown at Area 51 on the fake moon landing set in an effort to slowly infiltrate humanity in some sort of Arcturian Zionist plot.
The rest of us began as two very simple and undifferentiated cells. Those two cells set out to build you from the ground up, and slowly put all the structures in place that are now completely interlocking and you can’t live without. At one point, though, you had exactly none of them.
Life was perfectly capable of moving from a simple point to one we would think of after the fact as being irreducibly complex because once it’s up and running it’s too complex to go backward. However, life keeps proving on a constant basis its basic construction has no such limitations when moving forward.
And that’s a mature, complex organism. Cells themselves are made in a much less complex fashion. It isn’t an intricate system of interlocking parts, but a loose collection of parts floating and bobbing around in a bag of cytoplasm…
And those are the more complex cells out there. Lovely as they are, we know that eukaryotic cells (and if you don’t know that term, chances are you shouldn’t be trying to answer this question) aren’t the simplest form life can take. It can exist on a much simpler prokaryotic level which is little more than a loop or two of DNA in a wrapper.
They don’t even reach "snicker bar cell" complexity, and lack pretty much all the cell structures people point to in order to say life is irreducibly complex. Life can exist without them. It does so all the time.
Further, we know there are entire classes of those which consume inorganic materials for food, and which reproduce asexually. That means we know at its simplest and most basic form life actually can and often does manufacture itself from nonliving things. In other words, we know at its simplest and most basic form, a set of simple inorganic compounds which come together in the right form will begin assembling the other available inorganic compounds in the environment around them into organic life, and that’s what we’ve directly observed (so no pesky fossil record or guessing… we done watched it happen with our own peepers).
So where’s the irreducible complexity coming into play?
It isn’t secular biologists who are generally arguing God has to enter into the equation because you simply can’t trace life from the basic environment forward.
Science itself has no need for God to answer its questions. Unanswered questions are simply unanswered, not unanswerable, and the solution is to continue searching, not turn to a philosophical point of view.
If there’s an argument to be made in favor of God having to be injected into the equation, it’s most likely going to be made by someone whose religious beliefs have helped guide their investigation and conclusions. Hence, I asked the question here and not in the science section.
Technorati Tags: area 51, basic construction, brain, cease, cytoplasm, fake moon landing, fashion, heart, hybrid clones, intricate system, keel, kidneys, loose collection, maturity, organism, rubbish, undifferentiated cells, zionist plot