Irreducible complexity

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Irreducible complexity in clocks.

Irreducible complexity (IC) is a subset of the featured theory of Intelligent Design (ID), except it is even more scientific because of the generally more scientific sound of a title like "Irreducible complexity".

The essence of IC follows thusly:

  1. Life is complicated,
  2. We don't understand evolution
  3. Complicated things don't work when you take them apart (like clocks and zebras for example)

Therefore, an unnamed "Intelligent Designer" must have put the parts together to make the "irreducibly complex" things that we don't understand.

See, it's all quite scientific, perhaps slightly out of your grasp.

IC proponents have proven that it's a proper scientific theorem by taking apart a blind watchmaker, and observing that he consistently fails to function while in a state of disassembly. Also, since he fails to resume his watch making when put back together, the "blind watchmaker theory" proves that only an Intelligent Designer could have assembled him in the first place.

IC, like ID, is in no way related to religion. It simply posits that an unnamed designer made complicated things by means so futuristic, so far outside the realm of observable science, that it (or "He") could be considered to be virtually supernatural.

Irreducible complexity in zebras.

Theory of irreducible complexity

Since all biological systems, from the eye of the spotted newt to the eye of the giant squid, are far too complicated to have come about by “chance”, as theorized by the false but popular religion of Darwinism, IC scientographologists only have to pick one or two biological systems and focus on those. Use of the word "focus" is apt, since the eye is the most popular component to which IC scientists refer. This makes the task of proving IC much simpler than common evolutionary biology, as scientographologists in the field of IC don't have to look at all of the evidence. Mostly they look at eyes. Eyes are easy to locate and the lenses are totally bouncy, which has the double benefit of impressing friends and grossing out girls.

Great face there, Ted!

Although evolutionists state that the complicated systems of life are the result of cumulative feature improvement due to the best of the best being “selected” (surviving) each generation, what they really mean is that things "evolve" by chance. This makes people uncomfortable. People are complicated that way; so complicated, in fact, that their mere discomfort at the faulty claims of evolutionists prove that man is too complex to have come about by chance. This means, in effect, that the unnamed Intelligent Designer must have designed man. Ipso ergo facto. And halleluiah.

Ted Haggard, in his modest and humble tone, describes his scientific objections to the idea of chance accidentally creating an eye or of the preposterous theory of evolution causing dogs to eventually turn into cats in an interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins[1]. Haggard is was a pastor and his literal interpretation of the Bible has no effect on his views, as that's a completely different kind of intelligent supernatural creator who designs things that don't work when they're taken apart, as compared to the virtually supernatural creator of ID that also happens to design things that don't work when they're in pieces.

Examples of irreducible complexity

The irreducibly complex Bombardier Beetle

Bombardier Beetle

The bombardier beetle’s defense mechanism is incredibly complicated and proof of the veracity of irreducible complexity: when it has been drinking to excess (when it’s been in the UK watching the World Cup down at the pub, in other words) it pisses some absinth really quickly and burns the face of anyone trying to fondle its arse. The two chemicals, Red Bull and vodka, can only be stored together with an inhibitor, or else they explode with the force of a Creator who is angered that His favorite creation is wasting time looking through microscopes instead of reading His book.

This is the absolutely correct mechanism.[2]

The absolutely incorrect explanation, given by scientists like Ken Miller, is that Red Bull and vodka don’t explode when poured into the same glass. This was demonstrated in the 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. Nobody knows why the lecturer did it; it's suspected by the suspicious that he wanted to be both wide awake and drunk. Evolutional biographers attempted to cover up his gaff by stating that you have to add a catalyst (Pop Rocks) before the combination will explode.

That they would have to resort to making up these fictional "Pop Rocks"[3] underlines their desperation.


Some scientists say that, based on mountains of mutually supportive and obviously fraudulent evidence, all life on Earth is the result of 3,500,000,000 years of evolution due to mutation, variation amongst the offspring, natural selection and cumulative feature improvement. This is patent nonsense! The first man was made by the unnamed Intelligent Designer out of some unspecified material. A "dirt" from a "Garden of Eden", if you will. The first woman was made by unknown but undoubtedly complex means, from an unspecified but inerrantly documented cloning project that followed soon afterward, using DNA from one of the original man's ribs. During the experiment the "X" and "Y" chromosomes in the clone went all "X", revealing just how complicated cloning is. Making exact copies of things is hard.

This is in no way related to the Book of Genesis as it appears in the King James Version of the Bible[4]. That would be creationism, which is not scientific as it's neither disprovable nor does its title consist of fancy words.

Speaking of the Holy Bible, did you know that without its spine, the 'good book' just falls apart into literally hundreds of separate pages. It's so irreducibly complex that only an unnamed Intelligent Designer could have made it! Oddly this isn’t scientific, because we know the name of the creator: Thomas Nelson Publishers. It would, however, be scientifical if we happened to forget the publisher, or if that passage got jam on it. Then it would be ineffable.


Half an arch?

An arch is a cunning device; shapely, seductive, you could walk its brains out. Its invention is falsely attributed to the human beings known as “Romans”. An arch is an irreducibly complex structure – if you take one block out the whole darn thing collapses – so an arch cannot be made bit by bit slowly evolving towards its target. The obvious conclusion is that an arch can only be created in its complete form to work; I mean, have you ever heard of “half” of an arch?

Evolutionists like to point out that all arch bridges in the world today were, at one point during their construction, "half" of the full bridge. Some might even go on to say that all arches were, at one point, only "quarter" of an arch, or even less. Maybe scaffolding was once there that allowed the bridge to be constructed, maybe some parts can be taken away without the irreducibly complex structure failing. Maybe, maybe, maybe. It's always maybe isn't it? Arches are always made in their full form and are not built bit by bit.

The Poorly Sighted Watchmaker and irreducible simplicity

The know-it-all Oxford University professor, Richard Dawkins, has written a best selling book on the subject of evolution called the Blind Watchmaker, in which he uses designs in nature that he views to be faulty, like the back-to-front retina in the human eye or the upside down sinus cavities in the skull of man, as proof that these systems must have evolved rather than been designed in their current form. A simple but effective rebuttal to his outrageous claims is that the unnamed Intelligent Designer is in fact shortsighted, and couldn't locate his glasses during the morning and the evening of the first day. Michael Behe’s spectacular book-length rebuttal, The Poorly Sighted Watchmaker, uses this method to highlight stupid designs in nature and attribute them to a poorly sighted unnamed Intelligent Designer.

Halibut’s skull

Ugly bastard!

The halibut has the second ugliest face in nature. The only other person who has an uglier face is the person you hate most of all. It could be Ann Coulter, but we’ll let kids hear both sides of the debate and let them decide. That’s our favorite sound bite after all. Back to the Halibut: it is an incredibly lazy, cold-blooded bottom feeder which spends most of its life resting on the sea floor.

Unfortunately, as Dawkins states in his book, the halibut was so ugly that it had a hard time getting laid, and even when the opportunity for hot, fin-on-fin fishsex arose both the male and female of the species had to get so drunk that their offspring were often born pickled.

In order to survive, according to the evolutionologist, the halibut "evolved" the bizarre adaptation of having both eyes on one side of its head. This way, since the males have their eyes on the right and females on the left, they can have sex without looking at each other.

Irreducible complexity, however, states the case in a different way. Without having both eyes on one side of its head, the complex creature that is the halibut fails to function. This is a far simpler theory than the one put forth by Darwinists, and Occam's razor says that the simplest theory is the correct theory.

The halibut’s skull is a classical example of would happen if evolution, with its random chances and chance randomness, were true: the world would be overrun with extinct, drunk fish. In other words, a total fuck up.

See how complex the eye is? It's got, like, thirty numbers pointing to things! No wonder you're always poking your finger in it.

The eye, an irreducibly complex way of seeing things

The eye one more of the literally tens of examples of how wrong the evolutionists are. As you know, light from the sun bounces off of things and gets in your eyes. Later, the moon lights up to replace the sun, which isn't up at night.

Evolutionists theorize, if their mad rambling can really be considered theorization, that the eye evolved from earlier, simpler organs. Perhaps first came a cell that was slightly sensitive to light. This help the protocreature know which way was up. The "up sensitive" protocreatures proved better at surviving than the blind protocreatures, because the blind ones tended to drown in the bathtub. Slowly but steadily the "up sensisitives" were fruitful and did multiply, competition within the species led to protocreatures with the "best" version of the cell being more successful, etc. The cell became a cluster, the cluster an eye.

This is false. While this web of "ifs" quasi-refutes the obvious question of "What good is half an eye?", it ignores the newer, better question of "What good is half a cell?". Thus, evolution again is proven false. This, in turn, proves that the unnnamed intelligent designer must have done it, or we wouldn't be here being so complex and logical.

Motivation for design

Proof of ID & IC: Only an unnamed Intelligent Designer could make a complex creature like this adorable Aye-aye.

Since, as we've proven, evolution is wrong, irreducible complexity is the only option and Intelligent Design is, therefore, correct by default. Despite the fact that IC and ID are more than scientific enough by themselves, some leading academics of better private universities in the deep south of the USA have gone one step further and asked the question: why did the Intelligent Designer create life on earth?

We all know that mimicry - stick insects, dung beetles, etc - are always used by IC scientographologists to prove their marvelous theories. The academics who are attempting to answer the question are focusing on one problem: who’s side is the Intelligent Designer on? Does he want to protect the insects from predators? Why does he make predators to eat them in the first place? If he did, then wouldn’t he want them to find their food easier? Also, what about zebras and lions and gazelles and cheetahs? The predators are so adept at catching their prey, yet the prey are adept at evading their predators. Again, whose side is the Intelligent Designer on?

Or, take the hammer orchid: this plant propagates its DNA by coaxing a wasp (not "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant", but the icky kind of bee that's too lazy to make delicious honey) into screwing it. The plant then bashes the poor little sod against the pollinia, or plant vagina, again and again. This is just a pointless waste of time for the wasp and it begs the question: why the hell? The hammer orchid just pisses the wasp off for ten seconds but, meanwhile, the nefarious bucket orchid annoys a bee for many hours, almost drowns him and gets him to carry out a pointless ritual an indefinite number of times. When the bee lands on the snazzy up market swimming pool which is part of the orchid, he’s tripped up, falls into the deep end and almost drowns. There’s only one exit: through the sewer pipe connected to the bottom of the pool. The bee squeezes out over half an hour. He flies off sadder, but no wiser. Why would the Intelligent Designer annoy and waste the time of the stupid little creeps? Is it that he doesn't love his other creations as much as he loves mankind?

The answer, obviously, is yes. He loves his most complex design more than anything, even going so far as to create the whole universe in a mere six days...lemme go...just for us, and sending His only son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Chr...hey!...down to Earth...quit it, I'm not done tell us of His Divine Plan...stop pushing me...Have you heard the Good News?...c'mon! I've almost saved them...


See also


Potatohead aqua.png Featured Article  (read another featured article) Featured version: 4 October 2011
This article has been featured on the front page. — You can vote for or nominate your favourite articles at Uncyclopedia:VFH.
Template:FA/04 October 2011Template:FA/2011Template:FQ/04 October 2011Template:FQ/2011