>Richard Wein: 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."
DNAunion: I'll respond to this point this time.
The skeleton is the skeletal system while the soft tissue component of the
human body is not. Two separate "systems". In fact, the human body fails as
being IC based on the first few words of Behe's definition: "...a single
system....". The humand body consists of the skeletal system, the
reproductive system, the urinary system, the nervous system, the digestive
system, etc.; and each one of these systems is itself composed of several
parts (organs). So I don't think the degree of flexibility you claim to be
present - that almost any functional system can be called as IC system - is
present in Behe's definition.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 02:07:37 EDT