From: tikeda@sprintmail.com
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 09:55:50 EDT
Terry wrote:
[...]
>Now if you're going to say, as Mike does, that if it
>evolved then it apparently wasn't irreducibly complex,
>then you're just being tautological. [...]
I don't think that is a tautology; "confused" would be a better
description. Systems are determined to be IC (v1.0) on the basis
of extant, physically determinable properties, independent of
any considerations about their origins. Behe's work was to show
that IC-ness is a reliable indicator of design.
Suggesting that a system couldn't be IC because it evolved
suggests some confusion about the logical order of the
argument. (Perhaps one of the in-house philosophers could
provide the common name for this class of fallacy?)
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
(tikeda@sprintmail.com)
Errata - In my last post I transposed a couple crucial
characters. "Sigma-45" should actually read "sigma-54"
(product of rpoN). There are other typos too, but this
one might have left a few people scratching their heads...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 13 2002 - 11:00:45 EDT