Design or Chance? Assessing Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity Argument and Graham Oppy's Philosophical Challenges

Authors

1 Master degree, of Philosophy of Religion, Farabi Faculty, University of Tehran

2 Professor of Philosophy of Religion, University of Tehran

10.22080/jepr.2025.28829.1267

Abstract

This article examines and evaluates Michael Behe's argument of irreducible complexity as a cornerstone of the intelligent design theory, alongside Graham Oppy's philosophical challenges to it. Behe contends that certain biological systems possess interdependent components, such that the removal of any single part renders the entire system non-functional, and such complex systems cannot be explained by gradual evolutionary processes. He argues that these systems necessitate the existence of an intelligent designer. In contrast, Oppy challenges Behe's reasoning by proposing alternative explanations for the complexity of these systems, such as gene duplication, co-option, and genetic synergy. Additionally, Oppy critiques Behe's argument by highlighting the ambiguity in defining irreducible complexity and the non-sequitur of inferring theism from it. This study employs an analytical-critical approach to dissect Behe's argument and its key components, including the definition of irreducible complexity and biological evidence. The findings indicate that Oppy's criticisms, while challenging, are insufficient to fully refute Behe's argument. By defending the logical and scientific validity of Behe's reasoning, the author concludes that the intelligent design theory remains a defensible alternative to the theory of evolution.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics