>
>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.
>
I think irreducible complexity is the way to go, much better than
functional information since irreducible complexity is quantifiable.
The next step is a convincing argument that irreducible complexity
implies design. This brings to my mind the quotes I gave from
Harold Morowitz awhile back where he said he was strongly
committed to the idea of design. This was motivated by observations
of irreducible complexity. Interestingly enough, Morowitz is an
evolutionist and also a Pantheist.
I'm looking forward to reading Mike's book. I was on the reflector
awhile back when he was defending his ideas, quite prolifically
I might add. I remember one reflectorite complaining that 95%
of the messages to the reflector came from either Mike or Glenn :-).
Anyway, Mike is very persuasive with many original and interesting
ideas.
One should also be aware that the complexologists are working on this
problem. As I said in my reply to Burgy, irreducible complexity is
what is really meant by complexity in most cases. They probably
haven't made enough progress as of yet to be convincing to the
skeptic, but I think they are to be commended for actually trying
to deal with the problem instead of sweeping it under the rug with
a just-so story ;-).
Morowitz, whom I mentioned above, happens to be one of these
complexologists and, in fact, is editor in chief of a new journal
<Complexity> published by John Wiley. Has he lost his committment
to design? No, his argument would be (if I dare speak for him :)
that the existence of natural laws allowing for the spontaneous
appearance of irreducible complexity is strong evidence of design.
>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.
>
Ah, no, I don't think I could distinguish it from "intelligent" design. :-)
This reminded me of Fred Hoyle's famous "somebody monkeyed with physics"
quote. I found some additional context to this in an article by
Owen Gingerich which I'll pass along. Anyone interested in the design
argument should read this article, IMHO.
=========================================================================
I am told that Fred Hoyle, who together with Willy Fowler found
this remarkable nuclear arrangement, has said that nothing has
shaken his atheism as much as this discovery. Occasionally Fred
Hoyle and I have sat down to discuss one or another astronomical
or historical point, but I never had enough nerve to ask him if
his atheism had really been shaken by finding the nuclear
resonance structure of carbon and oxygen. However, the answer
came rather clearly in the Novemher 1981 issue of the Cal Tech
alumni magazine, where he wrote:
Would you not say to yourself, "Some supercalculating
intellect must have designed the properties of the
carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my fuding such
an atom through the blind forces of nature would be
utterly minuscule." Of course you would. . . . A common
sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as
with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind
forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one
calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as
to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
-- Owen Gingerich, "Dare a Scientist Believe in Design,"
in _Evidence of Purpose_, J.M. Templeton, ed., Continuum,
New York, 1994, pp. 21-32.
==============================================================================
I think you may have misinterpreted my suggestion to drop intelligent
from "intelligent design". I had three reasons for this suggestion:
1) I was intersested in an objective measure of design, something
measurable.
2) One should start out modestly, go for the field goal instead of
the touchdown.
3) One should try to anticipate diversionary tactics. If one were to
start a thread on intelligent design on talk.origins I can guarantee
that within 30 minutes Herb Huston will reply with his one-liner,
"have you ever choked on a piece of food?". In other words,
intelligent design invites the response "Oh yea, this don't look
so intelligent to me, bubba". "Intelligence" is being used in two
different ways, of course. There are many "non-intelligent" designs
that would require an "intelligent" designer nevertheless. Ask any
engineer :-).
A fourth reason I suppose is that intelligence is more or less implicit
in design anyway.
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================