Reducibly Complex

It has been brought to my attention recently (thanks Justin!) that this blog harps on creationism a lot. While this is true, that is certainly not my intention. A large part of the reason I have been going to the creation/intelligent design topics a lot lately is because of my “‘Evidence for Creation’ Debunked” series, which took more time than I expected it would. Also, creationism is sort of my go-to topic in skepticism, principally because I cannot understand how people in the creationist camp that know the information about evolution can still deny its existence.

I hope to be blogging more about other scientific and skeptical topics very soon. I am going to be writing a conclusion for the “Debunked” series and posting the entire set as a separate page to this blog, but afterwards I will be writing on logical fallacies, vaccination fear, and some other topics. Look for these in the near future.

It has come to our attention that in the last 24 hours some viewers may have experienced a redirection from ReduciblyComplex.com to another website or advertising site. This problem occurred because of a bug in one of our advertisers’ banner ads. All banner ads have been removed until the problem is resolved.

We apologize for any misdirection, pop-ups, or other problems you may have experienced.

To those of you reading out there, you should subscribe to our RSS feed. That way you can be notified whenever a post is added. WOOHOO!

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 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 one looks 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, even if one or several of its components are removed. This is only one of many examples; the notion of irreducible complexity is falsifiable and is thus wrong.

As I am a human, the result of billions of years of evolution, I am a wonderfully complex organism. Nevertheless, my complexity is reducible, as many excellent scholars have shown.

Thus, I am Reducibly Complex.