Re: Dembski essay, part II

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:39:49 -0500 (EST)

At 05:10 PM 4/22/98 -0400, David Campbell wrote:
>>There exists a reliable criterion for detecting design. This criterion
>>detects design strictly from observational features of the world. Moreover,
>>this criterion belongs to probability and complexity theory, not to
>>metaphysics and theology. This criterion is relevant to biology. When
>>applied to the complex, information-rich structures of biology, this
>>criterion detects design. In particular, the complexity-specification
>>criterion shows that Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems
>>are designed.
>I'd want to see some supporting evidence for this claim.
>Crystals can have very complex structures, with the atoms in a regular
>pattern, only one of many possible patterns. Do you conclude design? If
>so, it is entirely by the means of natural laws.

Dear David,

Given the interparticle forces, physicists do not yet know why a crystal is
the lowest energy state for given temperature and pressure. Of course, the
design lies in the laws themselves. Who designed the laws? Also, who
sustains the laws? Do they sustain by themselves????

>Likewise, in the case of complicated molecular systems in the cell, there
>are constraining laws (e.g., if it does not work, it dies; chemical
>properties of amino acids; the need to transmit information) and extremely
>flexible raw materials. Molecular phylogenies and occasional examples of
>primitive partial versions of complex systems appear to point to stages in
>the assembly of complex systems from simpler ones, again suggesting a
>prominent role for evolution in the development of complex systems.
>"Irreducibly complex" is another term that needs better defined so that we
>know we're talking about the same thing.
>David C.

I agree that "irreducible complexity" is defined in a somewhat circularly

Take care,