You wrote:
>At the _most_, Allan, you call attention to the fact that Behe's definition
>of irreducibility needs refining. Surely it is possible for someone to
>construct a definition that will include only his examples.
Then some ID advocate should do it or admit that it can't be done. I debated
Mike about a year and a half ago and came away with the feeling that Mike's
definition of design is quite fluid. A clear definition of how design was to
be recognized was something that was never forth coming.
> His argument
>does not, after all, depend upon the existence of other examples. So we are
>back to the same place: refute his examples at the Journal of Molecular
>Biology level. If no one can do that, then the claim that evolutionary
>theory is not general for the biological world is correct. Then, as I
>claimed earlier, it would not be correct to assume a priori that every
>biological system evolved. Each system would have to be examined and, if
>possible, declared to be derived by gradualistic evolution if that
>examination so
>warranted. Otherwise, do not make general claims for evolution. Yes, some
>of those systems not proved to have evolutionary origin just might be
>designed.
Somehow I get the feeling that what you ask here is a Herculean task like
drinking the waters of the ocean. Or counting the grains of sand on the
world's beaches. And since it can never be done, one will always have the
ability to say, "Well you haven't examined everything so you can't conclude
anything about evolution."
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm