"It is ridiculous to consider the economic system to have been designed
by some single designer who thought out all the interactions. Yet, this
system is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX. Consider what would happen if both of the
factories which make computer memory chips were to burn down at the same
time. As I understand it there are only two of them in the entire world.
A couple of years ago, one of them was destroyed by fire and computer
chip prices skyrocketed."
Nice job, Glen. But to what extent does this example actually refute
Michael Behe's thesis concerning irreducible complexity? I don't think it
does. It seems to me that this example is, at least in part, playing with
semantics? The truth is that the human race could and would survive even
if every computer chip in the world were permanently destroyed. Of course,
this forum would not. :-) And lots of chaos would result.
I think Behe's thesis is that the mechanism of natural selection can not
get the job done: of evolving certain existing biochemical systems.
Let's suppose he is right. Does this, then, establish intelligent design?
No, it does not. If Michael is right, then intelligent design would seem
to be a most reasonable explanation - but surely not the only one. As
Glen's example suggests, there might be other explanations. For those of
us who believe in a Creator, we need to realize that "doing in" natural
selection does not "do in" the possibility of, nor the inventiveness of
man to find, other naturalistic explanations. Intelligent design is not
so easily established.
As I suggested in an earlier posting, I believe evidence for intelligent
design will never PROVE the necessity of God's existence, but it surely
can, and should, play an important apologetic role - to strengthen our
faith.
Gordon Simons <simons@stat.unc.edu>