Law of Dynamics-Complexity of Sciences

The foundational principle that for any field of inquiry to qualify as scientific, it must study either dynamic systems (systems that change over time), complex systems (systems with interacting components that produce emergent behavior), or both. Static, simple systems may be mathematically describable, but they're not truly scientific—they're just puzzles. The law of dynamics-complexity explains why physics is science (dynamic, often complex), why biology is science (definitely both), and why some fields struggle for scientific status—they're studying phenomena that are either too static, too simple, or both. This law also explains why your love life feels like an unscientific mess: it's dynamic, complex, and completely resistant to prediction, which actually makes it more scientific than a simple, predictable system. Small comfort.

Law of Dynamics-Complexity of Sciences Example: "He tried to argue that astrology was scientific because it made predictions. She invoked the law of dynamics-complexity: 'Science studies dynamic, complex systems. Astrology treats human lives as simple, static outputs of planetary positions. That's not science; that's just wrong.' He said the planets were dynamic. She said not dynamic enough. The argument was dynamic and complex, which at least made it scientific."

Law of Dynamics-Complexity of Sciences by AbzuInExile February 16, 2026

The Lord Complexity 

A group of people that will beat the shit out of you if you don't remember them

LISTEN UP YOU MOTHERFUCKERS!! THIS IS THE LORD COMPLEXITY, REMEMBER US! AND IF YOU DON'T, WE'RE GONNA BEAT THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF YOU!

The Lord Complexity by Cristo Piss November 1, 2017

Irreducible Complexity 

A myth perpetrated by Creationists and IDiots alike (although they are the same people really). It states that certain bodily systems are "too complex" to have evolved over millions of years despite evidence to the contrary

Creationist IDiot: the human eye is irreducibly complex, it cannot have evolved

Scientist: we have found evidence to the contrary and have run simulations on primitive photosensitive cells which disprove irreducible complexity.

Creationist IDiot: the human eye is irreducibly complex, it cannot have evolved

Scientist: did you understand what i just told you?

Creationist IDiot: the human eye is irreducibly complex, it cannot have evolved

Scientist: I take it you either didn't understand that or you are just close minded towards evolution

Creationist IDiot: the human eye is irreducibly complex, it cannot have evolved

Scientist: ok I'm not dealing with you anymore

Creationist IDiot: We won! he cannot prove Evilution, WE WON!!!

Irreducible Complexity by person with at least half a br April 21, 2010

Complexity Clan 

Complexity Clan is The Best Counter-Strike Team in North America. Recently Replacing Team 3D for the Title and is one of the most dominating clans on Counter-strike.

i wana be in Complexity Clan

Complexity Clan by ot^Matallica May 18, 2007

Irreducible Complexity 

This theory is a favorite of theists. It says that life is simply too complex to have developed via natural selection or random mutation. However...

- on July 11, 2002, scientists artificially re-created polio. Using only the DNA of the polio virus and a series of synthetic chemicals, they recreated the natural desire to reproduce, the ability to evolve, and all other mechanisms that make a virus, LIFE, work.

- the bacterial flagellum argument has also been disproven. Back in 1996, scientists found that the 10-part "Type 3 secretion mechanism" that pathogenic germs have is very similar in function to the bacterial flagellum, but does so with only 10 parts. Therefore, each supposedly "irreducible" mechanism is perfectly functional if you take away the RIGHT parts. It is still reducible.
- the Eye argument has also been disproven. All you need are some simple photo-receptive cells that just detect light. As the species ages, this mechanism becomes more and more useful as these traits develop into actual senses. Keep in mind that these mechanisms had countless opportunities to develop across countless species during the Cambrian Explosion 500 million years ago, and have been getting more and more complex over that amount of time.

Sorry for using science and fact, but keep in mind that if you make a claim, there's always someone willing to check your facts.

Complexity does NOT necessarily indicate design. Irreducible Complexity is BULLSHIT!

Irreducible Complexity by kjun1_3 February 25, 2011

Complexity Clan 

The Best Counter-Strike Team in North America. Recently Replacing Team 3D for the Title and is one of the most dominating clans on Counter-strike.

i wana be in Complexity Clan lol

Complexity Clan by ot^Matallica May 18, 2007

Irreducible Complexity 

As has been stated, it is a favorite argument used amongst creationists to claim that some organic systems are too complex to have evolved as such.

In other words, it is the argument of "I don't understand how it works, therefore it's wrong."

Ironically, it can be used as an argument against God, too.

Creationist: "You can't explain how an eye evolved, it's too complex to have sprung up on its own. It's irreducible complexity."

Scientist: "Of course it can, you're just incapable of understanding the concept that it takes millions of years for features to evolve in to the things we see today."

Creationist: "Nuh-uhhhh."

Scientist: "Fine, please tell me exactly how your 'God' made the eye."

Creationist: "He made it in his own image."

Scientist: "How exactly did he do it, lay out the steps for me on the precise methods used."

Creationist: "I don't know...."

Scientist: "Thus, by your own logic, you've just disproved God. Fantastic job, let me buy you a beer."

Irreducible Complexity by dumaitisagain October 3, 2011