Re: [asa] Innate design detector?

As I understand Angus' argument, it's not that they can't be met in
principle, but in certain systems, particularly the bacterial flagellum,
there is no evidence that they have been met. He is in particular
responding to arguments by Ken Miller and others purporting to show how the
flagellum could have arisen through cooption. He isn't offering any
probabilities. I think this is more a defensive argument, responding to
arguments against IC in general and relating to the flagellum in particular,
than a positive argument for design.

On 11/5/06, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Dave,
> Ever since you posted Angus' criteria, I've been a little baffled by
> the significance. Certainly the criteria cited seem to be reasonable
> conditions that need to occur in the development of complex systems. But are
> there any indications that they cannot, in principle, be met? Or is it
> simply an argument of low probability for each of these criteria to be met?
> We're a long way from determining any probabilities quantitatively so is
> this one of the arguments from incredulity? that surely these conditions
> couldn't possibly be met so something else must have happened?
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *....*
>
> What I'm asking is specifically whether those availability,
> synchronization, localization, coordination, and interface compability
> criteria are reasonable. Perhaps they are reasonable criteria and chance
> and regularity can meet them. I'm just curious whether the criteria make
> sense, and if not, specifically why not.
>
> **
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 5 22:13:34 2006