"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"
About this Quote
Behe’s definition is engineered to feel like common sense: a machine with parts you can’t remove without breaking it. The phrasing does a lot of quiet work. “Irreducibly” smuggles in finality; it’s not just complex, it’s complex in a way that supposedly blocks gradual assembly. “Well-matched” implies coordination that sounds less like tinkering and more like planning. And “basic function” sets the stage for a clean, binary test: either the system performs its named job or it “cease[s] functioning,” full stop.
The intent isn’t simply to describe biological systems; it’s to set a trap for a particular kind of explanation. If you accept the terms, incremental evolution starts to look implausible because intermediates are framed as useless. The subtext is rhetorical: complexity becomes evidence, not just a feature. The definition nudges readers toward an inference of design without having to argue design directly. It turns a scientific-sounding criterion into a gateway to metaphysical conclusions.
Context matters because “irreducible complexity” is a signature concept of the intelligent design movement, popularized in the 1990s and litigated in U.S. education fights (most famously Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005). In that landscape, the definition functions like a courtroom exhibit: crisp, intuitive, easy to repeat. Critics point out the hidden move: evolution doesn’t require every precursor to perform the same “basic function,” and parts can shift roles (exaptation), scaffolded by redundancy and co-option. Behe’s sentence works because it offers a neat mechanical metaphor in a domain where history is messier than machines.
The intent isn’t simply to describe biological systems; it’s to set a trap for a particular kind of explanation. If you accept the terms, incremental evolution starts to look implausible because intermediates are framed as useless. The subtext is rhetorical: complexity becomes evidence, not just a feature. The definition nudges readers toward an inference of design without having to argue design directly. It turns a scientific-sounding criterion into a gateway to metaphysical conclusions.
Context matters because “irreducible complexity” is a signature concept of the intelligent design movement, popularized in the 1990s and litigated in U.S. education fights (most famously Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005). In that landscape, the definition functions like a courtroom exhibit: crisp, intuitive, easy to repeat. Critics point out the hidden move: evolution doesn’t require every precursor to perform the same “basic function,” and parts can shift roles (exaptation), scaffolded by redundancy and co-option. Behe’s sentence works because it offers a neat mechanical metaphor in a domain where history is messier than machines.
Quote Details
| Topic | Science |
|---|---|
| Source | Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996). This is Behe's definition of "irreducible complexity" as presented in the book. |
More Quotes by Michael
Add to List
