You wrote,
>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.
>
It depends upon how rapidly the loss of chips was. If you take them away
slowly, then the world can adjust but if rapidly, the world can not adjust.
Consider the following in light of the usual way that irreducible complexity
is presented. It is stated that if you take away any part of the functioning
system it all is useless. This hypothetical removal is instantaneous with the
organism having no time to adjust. If you do the same instantaneous removal
to the economy, it will collapse also.
The present world population is largely the result of the agricultural
revolution which in turn fed the industrial revolution. If you suddenly
destroyed every single computer chip in the world, most cars would no longer
start, airplanes would no longer be able to fly, the government would not know
who you are, communications would fail, the money in your bank would disappear
meaning that the economy would suffer a severe depression. (I remember what
happened to Oklahoma City when the Feds allowed Penn Square Bank to fail. No
one had money to power the local economy. My Sister-in-law's store failed for
lack of sales).
Now, who is going to deliver food to the cities? The trucks today need
computer chips to run. No store can call and order food. The store can't pay
for the food even if they can somehow send a horse and rider to order it.
Within 3 weeks, people will start to starve. It takes Detroit several months
to start making cars without computer chips so that transportation can be
restored, but, they can't call the steel makers and order steel and can't pay
for it if they could. Their employees are going to be on the prowl for food
rather than trying to design new cars. Me too. Instead of trying to find oil
to power the cars, I am going to turn into a hunter-gatherer.
>I think Behe's thesis is that the mechanism of natural selection can not
>get the job done: of evolving certain existing biochemical systems.
>
But he uses the evidence in the other temporal direction. The cilia is too
complex today to have been evolved in the past. He says that if you remove any
part of the cilia structure, the cilia will not operate; therefore it could
not have evolved. He never really rules out some similar phenomenon like the
economy which is irreducibly complex today but we KNOW evolved from the past,
simpler states.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm