From: Loren Haarsma (lhaarsma@calvin.edu)
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 17:05:02 EDT
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Terry M. Gray wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree with the first sentence here and, hence, have no trouble
> stating that an irreducibly complex structure could have evolved.
> However, if you read Behe's definitions and descriptions carefully,
> you will hear him say that if the system could have evolved then it
> is not irreducibly complex. This was part of the point of a paper I
> gave a the ASA meeting in 1999 at John Brown University. If you want
> me to produce the quotes (from Behe) I will.
Because of this ambiguity, years ago I swore off the term
"irreducible complexity."
How about if we use:
"Inter-locking complexity" for (biochemical) systems composed of multiple
parts, all of which must be in place in order for the system to function;
and
"Non-evolvable" for systems which could not have evolved by known natural
mechanisms.
(Behe and Dembski tried (and failed) to show that, as a general rule,
inter-locking complexity implies non-evolvability. (In fact, any such
attempted proof must fail, because we already know of several
counter-examples.) The jury is still out as to whether the I.D. folks can
find any _particular_ instances of inter-locking complexity which are also
non-evolvable.)
Loren Haarsma
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 14 2002 - 08:58:42 EDT