Re: Behe's Irreducible Complexity Squared

Brian D Harper (bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Sat, 05 Sep 1998 20:53:15 -0400

At 04:52 PM 9/4/98 -0700, Joseph wrote:
>John,
>
>> It might be better to say that X's being irreducibly complex implies that
X requires a more circuitous, and hence less likely, evolutionary pathway.>
>
>My understanding is that the trend of the entire universe is in the
>opposite direction from evolution. That does not help me join with your
>sentiments in spite of my wish to be affable.
>
>> E.g., Dawkins uses the non-biological example of an arch. It's
undeniably irreducibly complex -- pull out any stone and the whole thing
collapses. And yet it's -possible- for one to "evolve" from a pile of stones
if one is lucky, if the right stones get washed away in a stream, e.g. This
comes not by building up to an arch, but by "building down" from a pile of
stones.>
>
>A living cell is more complex than any arch or any suspension bridge or
>anything else ever built.

OK, fine. So let's apply the argument from design to your observation.
The argument is based on the analogy with things that we know have been
designed. Thus we must conclude that the cell is too complex to
have been designed since everything we know to have been designed
is enormously simple in comparison.

Further we note that no bridge, automobile, plane etc. has ever
been designed and built in violation of any natural law. We
must therefore conclude that the intelligent designer is
constrained in such a manner as to never violate any natural
law.

JM:===
>No one uses or has ever used Dawkins'
>fantasies, like "building down." If anyone did, I would speculate that
>starting from the beginning of time to the end of time they would still
>be sitting by their pile of randomly placed rocks with no sign of any
>design of any kind. More disorder, yes. An arch or a bridge will
>crumble. More order, never. The trend of the entire universe is in the
>opposite direction.
>
>> And I certainly agree that the origin of the cell and abiogensis are
>> enormous and utterly unsolved challenges for evolutionary theory.>
>
>"Spontaneous generation, in biology, is the theory, now disproved, that
>living organisms sometimes arise from nonliving matter. It is sometimes
>referred to as abiogenesis, as opposed to biogenesis, the now
>established fact living organisms arise only from the reproduction of
>previously existing organisms."

I see. So your position is that living organisms cannot be created?

>Encylopaedia Britannica's entry under
>Spontaneous Generation. This summarizes the experience of billions of
>people many billions of times now and throughout history. Abiogenesis
>is a myth more than 2,000 years old, continued as a myth and, in my
>opinion, will always be a myth. For these reasons, I view it as the
>antithesis of science and cannot subscribe.
>
>I hope I have not said anything to offend you, John.
>
>Joseph Mastropaolo
>
>

Brian Harper
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University
214 Boyd Lab
155 W. Woodruff Ave
Columbus, OH 43210

"God forbid that we should give out a dream of
our own imagination for a pattern of the world"
-- Francis Bacon