Fw: Fw: the evolution of mousetraps
Russell Maatman (rmaat@mtc1.mtcnet.net)
Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:59:11 -0600Glenn, you said to Chuck Warman
>
> The design people say that complex objects, like watches and mousetraps
are
> too complex to have evolve. Thus when Paley finds a watch in the field,
he
> knows that it is too complex to have just happened and thus it was
designed.
> I am trying to say that that is not how Paley knows his watch is
designed.
> The logic goes like this.
>
> This object is incredibly complex
> Complex objects are designed objects
> Therefore this object is designed.
>
> I am objecting to the second assumption of this syllogism. Complex
objects can
> only be assumed to be designed IF AND ONLY IF it is proven that complex
> objects can not be developed in a stepwise fashion from simpler systems.
I thought that the design argument was not that they are fundamentally too
complex, but rather that no gradualistic evolutionary route is possible.
Behe warns against substituting "too complex" for irreducible complexity.
Russell Maatman
e-mail: rmaat@mtcnet.net