From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2003 - 14:47:48 EDT
Josh,
You quoted Dembski as writing:
Specified complexity is a property that things can possess or fail to
possess. Yet in what sense is specified complexity a property? Properties
come in different varieties. There are objective properties that obtain
irrespective of who attributes them. Water is such a property. There are
also subjective properties that depend crucially on who attributes them.
Beauty is such a property. To be sure, beauty may not be entirely in the
eye
of the beholder (there may be objective aspects to it). But beauty cannot
make do without the eye of some beholder.
I'd be much more impressed if water were a property. It is a rather a
substance which has properties. Had he referred to mass, he'd have made
sense. We normally measure mass via weight, which involves a
gravitational field. But mass is more fundamental than weight. Most of
the rest of the citation seems to me remarkably close to /ad
ignorantiam/. I boil it down to: Because scientists do not have a full
series of steps demonstrating the evolutionary development of the
flagellum, it originated /de novo/ by the intervention of an intelligent
designer.
I'm not up on the literature, but my guess is that there is growing
evidence for some aspects of flagellar development. But this is ignored
by IDers. I recall the earlier claim that the bombardier beetle
exemplified irreducible complexity. I also recall a report that steps
toward the explosive apparatus have been found in other living species.
Sequence would be difficult to impossible to demonstrate in fossil
remains. The gaps consistently keep getting smaller, and fewer. Looks to
me as though Dembski has to pin his faith on the fact that an asymptote
never quite merges, but always leaves a gap.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 14:53:41 EDT