From: DNAunion@aol.com <DNAunion@aol.com>
>>Richard Wein: I think it's unwise to place too much reliance on this paper
>by Thornhill and Ussery. Their definition of irreducible complexity seems
to
>me to be
> just as problematic as Behe's. I've yet to see any definition of IC which
> defines the meaning of "parts" or "components" in an adequate way.
>
>DNAunion: And I've yet to see an adequate and universally definition of
>life, evolution, and species. So does that mean that these too do not
exist?
As far as life and species are concerned, there are definitions that cover
the vast majority of cases. Yes, there are some grey areas at the borders.
But, in the vast majority of cases we have no difficulty applying the
definitions. There is no doubt that you are alive and that this coffee cup
in front of me is not. There is no doubt that elephants and ostriches are
two different species. (In the case of evolution, I think there are precise
definitions. The problem is that there is more than one definition. Anyway,
evolution is not a category in the sense of living/non-living and different
species, so the problem does not apply in the same way.)
In the case of irreducibly complexity, however, the definition is so
inadequate that almost *any* functional system can be considered IC. If
there are no non-IC functional systems, then Behe's division of systems into
IC and non-IC collapses.
I explained in my last post why almost any functional system can be
considered IC, by Behe's definition. I note that you snipped my explanation
without comment. Here it is again:
"If you can select the components freely, as Behe allows, then almost any
system can be considered IC. For example, I can consider the human body to
consist of two components: the skeleton and the soft tissue. These
components are well-matched and interacting, and removal of either of them
causes the body to effectively cease functioning, so by Behe's definition,
the human body is IC. And a similar line of argument can be applied to
almost any functional system."
By the way, it should be clear that the precision needed in the definition
of terms depends on the context. You have to use some judgement. I believe
you and I had a discussion on this subject once before, on the ARN board,
when you accused me of demanding absolute precision from IDers. As I said
then, I'm not demanding absolute precision, but I am demanding sufficient
precision to be able to make some sense of their claims. If we have no
precision at all in our claims then why bother making them?
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 12:16:15 EDT