Editing Irreducible complexity (section)

=== Argument from ignorance ===
Intelligent design proponents attribute to an intelligent designer those biological structures they believe are irreducibly complex and therefore they say a natural explanation is insufficient to account for them.<ref>Michael Behe. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51 Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060903185728/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51 |date=2006-09-03 }} 1996.</ref> However, critics view irreducible complexity as a special case of the "complexity indicates design" claim, and thus see it as an [[argument from ignorance]] and as a [[God of the gaps|God-of-the-gaps]] argument.<ref name="isaak_ci101">Index to Creationist Claims. Mark Isaak. The Talk.Origins Archive. "Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity." {{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI101.html |title=CI101: Complexity and design |access-date=2014-03-24 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131004031017/http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc//CI/CI101.html |archive-date=2013-10-04 }} "The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps." {{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html |title=CA100: Argument from incredulity |access-date=2014-03-24 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020072309/http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html |archive-date=2013-10-20 }}</ref>

[[Eugenie Scott]] and [[Glenn Branch]] of the [[National Center for Science Education]] note that intelligent design arguments from irreducible complexity rest on the false assumption that a lack of knowledge of a natural explanation allows intelligent design proponents to assume an intelligent cause, when the proper response of scientists would be to say that we do not know, and further investigation is needed.<ref>[[Eugenie C. Scott]] and Glenn Branch, [http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists "Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090330203658/http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists |date=2009-03-30 }}, National Center for Science Education website, September 10, 2002.</ref> Other critics describe Behe as saying that evolutionary explanations are not detailed enough to meet his standards, while at the same time presenting intelligent design as exempt from having to provide any positive evidence at all.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/darwins-black-box/ |title=Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe |access-date=2015-07-15 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150715212827/http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/darwins-black-box/ |archive-date=2015-07-15 }}</ref><ref>Amerikanbeat.net: A Critique of Behe, Dembski on "Irreducible Complexity"[https://web.archive.org/web/20100910063051/http://amerikanbeat.net/contact-amerikanbeat/a-critique-of-behe-dembski-on-%E2%80%9Cirreducible-complexity%E2%80%9D/]</ref>