Radiometric dating is a complex process complicated by
The concept is considered to be mostly bollocks when applied to evolution because it fails to take into account numerous other pathways that a particular ability can evolve through — it assumes that evolution must go through "additive" processes to achieve its conclusion and this isn't the case. It is one of the main arguments of the Intelligent Design movement.They frequently introduce the argument with a question of the type, "What use is half an eye? However if the question is recast as "Given a choice, would you prefer to be completely blind or have 50% of your present vision?", then it becomes clear that the question is badly formed, especially when keeping in mind that many species manage to survive with significantly less-advanced eyes. Intelligent design pushers argue that while some systems and organs can be explained by evolution, those that are irreducibly complex cannot, and therefore an intelligent designer must be responsible. Irreducible complexity is a concept popularized by noted pseudoscientist Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box to support intelligent design. And did you know that cells are really, really complicated? Specifically, it argues that if you take a part away from an organism and it stops functioning (analogous to taking the engine out of a car) then it must be irreducibly complex and cannot have evolved.
Oddly, no ID advocate has ever argued that the "designer" is a giant committee of unrelated inventors.
Behe also has defined and redefined irreducible complexity: In response to these demonstrations however, IDC proponents belatedly "reinterpret" their initial claims in order to lift them out of the critic's reach.
A first strategy to this end consists in shifting the burden of proof from plausible evolutionary pathways to the actual evolutionary story, maintaining that the broad outlines of a plausible evolutionary account amounts to nothing more than Darwinian wishful thinking and speculation.
Proponents of irreducible complexity assert that in most cases, the individual mutations do not provide any advantage by themselves, The core of their argument is this; that complexity can only be created by design. And then what they do, in their lectures, is they tell you over and over again; "biology is really complex".
And then that means; "biology was created by design".
I think I have now finally understood what "irreducibly complex" really means: a statement, fact or event so simple it cannot be simplified any further, but still too complex to be grasped by a creationist.