It seems to me that the complexity, self-organization people could agree
with your class 2 and not call it design. This in my view is the weakest
link in Mike's argument. Many evolutionists already acknowledge the
existence of irreducibly complex systems. Mike looks at the complex system
and says--it's too complicated--it could not have arisen by "natural"
means. People like Stuart Kauffman look at the complex system and say--I
wonder if such complexity can be generated relatively easily and then do
simulations and experiments to check it out. The initial results seem to
suggest that the answer is yes.
Let's not defeat a straw man here. Gradualism is out in the complexity
field. These people talk about emergence, systems reaching a critical
point before the new complex thing suddenly appearing, etc.
Class 2 does not equal design. It simply equals a non gradualistic origin
of complexity. Identifying something in class 2 does not mean that it is
unexplainable in "naturalistic" terms. In other words a methodological
naturalist coiuld be completely comfortable with class 2 phenomena.
Happy Thanksgiving to you all.
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt
*This mission critical message was written on a Macintosh with Eudora Pro*
A special message for Macintosh naysayers: