Editing Irreducible complexity (section)

=== Falsifiability and experimental evidence ===
Some critics, such as [[Jerry Coyne]] (professor of [[evolutionary biology]] at the [[University of Chicago]]) and [[Eugenie Scott]] (a [[physical anthropology|physical anthropologist]] and former executive director of the [[National Center for Science Education]]) have argued that the concept of irreducible complexity and, more generally, [[intelligent design]] is not [[falsifiability|falsifiable]] and, therefore, not [[scientific]].{{citation needed|date=September 2020}}

Behe argues that the theory that irreducibly complex systems could not have evolved can be falsified by an experiment where such systems are evolved. For example, he posits taking bacteria with no [[flagella|flagellum]] and imposing a selective pressure for mobility. If, after a few thousand generations, the bacteria evolved the bacterial flagellum, then Behe believes that this would refute his theory.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://evolutionnews.org/2016/10/philosophical_o/|title=Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: A Response to Critics|last=Behe|first=Michael|date=October 27, 2016|website=Evolution News & Science Today|access-date=August 17, 2018}}</ref>{{primary source inline|date=August 2018}} This has been done: a laboratory experiment has been performed where "immotile strains of the bacterium ''Pseudomonas fluorescens'' that lack flagella [...] regained flagella within 96 hours via a two-step evolutionary pathway", concluding that "natural selection can rapidly rewire regulatory networks in very few, repeatable mutational steps".<ref name=":0" />{{Update inline|date=December 2023|reason=For reactions, probably}}

Other critics take a different approach, pointing to experimental evidence that they consider falsification of the argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity. For example, [[Kenneth R. Miller|Kenneth Miller]] describes the lab work of Barry G. Hall on [[Escherichia coli|''E. coli'']] as showing that "Behe is wrong".<ref>{{cite book |author= Miller, K |title= Finding Darwin's God: a scientist's search for common ground between God and evolution |publisher= Cliff Street Books |location= New York |year= 1999 |isbn= 978-0-06-093049-3}}</ref>

Other evidence that irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution comes from the field of [[computer science]], which routinely uses computer analogues of the processes of evolution in order to automatically design complex solutions to problems. The results of such [[genetic algorithm]]s are frequently irreducibly complex since the process, like evolution, both removes non-essential components over time as well as adding new components. The removal of unused components with no essential function, like the natural process where rock underneath a [[natural arch]] is removed, can produce irreducibly complex structures without requiring the intervention of a designer. Researchers applying these algorithms automatically produce human-competitive designs—but no human designer is required.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.genetic-programming.com/humancompetitive.html|title=Human Competitive|website=www.genetic-programming.com|access-date=7 May 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160708052427/http://www.genetic-programming.com/humancompetitive.html|archive-date=8 July 2016}}</ref>