Fw: economic irreducible complexity

Russell Maatman (rmaat@mtc1.mtcnet.net)
Wed, 27 Nov 1996 14:22:41 -0600

Allan Harvey wrote on 11/27/96
> At 09:43 AM 11/27/96 -0600, Russell Maatman wrote:
> >Why is it, in an effort to refute Behe's irreducible complexity
> >people cite some complex system _not_ mentioned by Behe, and then
> >to refute their own example?
> *IF* Behe has a meaningful definition of "irreducible complexity", then
> is perfectly legitimate to examine other systems *IF* those other systems
> meet the definition. A scientist shouldn't restrict up front the ways in
> which other scientists are allowed to test his hypotheses. If you only
> allow Behe's handpicked systems, that makes the effective definition of
> irreducible complexity "these particular systems for which no
> explanation has been found", at which point the argument becomes

At the _most_, Allan, you call attention to the fact that Behe's definition
of irreducibility needs refining. Surely it is possible for someone to
construct a definition that will include only his examples. His argument
does not, after all, depend upon the existence of other examples. So we are
back to the same place: refute his examples at the Journal of Molecular
Biology level. If no one can do that, then the claim that evolutionary
theory is not general for the biological world is correct. Then, as I
claimed earlier, it would not be correct to assume a priori that every
biological system evolved. Each system would have to be examined and, if
possible, declared to be derived by gradualistic evolution if that
examination so
warranted. Otherwise, do not make general claims for evolution. Yes, some
of those systems not proved to have evolutionary origin just might be

In the Lord,

e-mail: rmaat@mtcnet.net