<<I think what is really needed is an objective measure of
complexity that isn't associated with such things as functionality,
value, meaning, purpose etc. The term I like is organized complexity.
This certainly carries with it an implication of functionality and
purpose. The question is whether it can be defined objectively
in terms of structure only.>>
Mike Behe uses the term "irreducible complexity." What he means my this is the
subject of his forthcoming book, "Darwin's Black Box" (Free Press), due this
summer.
By this he means "the ordering of independent parts to achieve a function that
is beyond any of the individual parts." On the bio-chemical level (his
specialty) we know this is not something that never arises by chance. No paper
has ever been published which explains these irreducibly complex systems in
testable detail.
If I understand the logic correctly, once we eliminate "non-intelligence" and
chance as explanations, we really have only one other direction to explore.
Thus, "intelligent design."
You suggest this:
"But this magnitude of specificity leads one to Anthropic Principle type of
arguments with their inherant implications regarding design."
Would you expand on this just a bit and distinguish it from "intelligent"
design? Thanks.
Jim