Re: Increasing Perplexity

Tim Ikeda (tikeda@sprintmail.com)
Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:09:23 -0400

Stan Zygmunt wrote:
To Brian...
[...]
> Behe describes his concept of "irreducible complexity"
> is he using "complexity" in the colloquial or the technical
> sense? If it is the colloquial sense, this probably muddies
> the waters more than it clears them. Can you answer this?
[...]

Hello Stan,
"Irreducibly complexity" is a distinct term (IC) although Mike does
use "complexity" by itself and in the colloquial sense elsewhere
in his book. Thus IC and "complexity" are separate things. Or
to put it better, IC refers to mostly one type of thing while
"complexity" means lot of things in Behe's book.

As it's defined an IC system is one which will no longer work if
any any part or subfunction can be removed. These systems are
also labeled "complex" just because, well... Heck, I don't know.
"Irreducible" would have worked fine by itself. If one needs more
than a 5-syllable term for scientific respectability, "ir-
reducible system" (IS) might do the trick.

Regards,
Tim Ikeda (tikeda@sprintmail.com)