About Reducibly Complex
What is Reducibly Complex?
Reducibly Complex is a blog that discusses topics ranging from science, skepticism, religion, atheism, government, and politics. Other topics are discussed from time to time, but this is rare. Nearly all posts have some kind of a scientific theme to them, but this is not always the case.
Who are we?
Well, right now ‘we’ is just me. My name is Danny and this is my personal blog. When I created this blog I had the idea that eventually I would invite other skeptics and friends to join me here to post their own science-based topics. But, as things tend to go in the world, other priorities have come up and I’ve never brought in any other people to write.
Why are there posts about non-scientific topics?
Reducibly Complex is a blog with a science based theme. This does not mean that ALL posts will be about science. As stated above, this blog is generally about topics with scientific background or influence, but that is a soft rule that is sometimes broken.
Why are some topics discussed more than others?
Reducibly Complex aims to blog about many topics. However, as this is a hobbyist website, and a person’s hobbies are based on their own personal interests, some topics are likely to come up more than others. It has been pointed out that many of the posts on this sight have to do with Christianity and the debunking of christian science; it is true that creation science and intelligent design are discussed far more often than any other single topic. Keep in mind this is a hobbyist site, and that a balance of topics is something that is just not a priority.
What does “Reducibly Complex” stand for?
Reducibly Complex is based on the argument of Irreducible Complexity that comes from intelligent design proponents. Simply put, irreducible complexity states that many organisms or organic structures are so complex that they could not possibly have evolved through natural selection, but instead must have been “designed” by an intelligent agent. For example, there are many intricately connected components to the human eye, so many so that, according to irreducible complexity, to take away one component would render the eye useless and thus all of the components would have to have been developed at the same time, rather than evolving slowly over millions of years (as evolution predicts). However, the argument falls apart when you look at the eye’s function when one of these components is taken away; contrary to irreducible complexity, the eye can still function, though to a diminished degree, if one or several of its components are removed. This is only one of many examples of how irreducible complexity fails as a scientific hypothesis.complex.
(Note: this page is to be expanded soon to further elaborate on the subject of irreducible complexity and to elaborate on the evidence as to why this theory is false.)
Please visit our advertisers!
