Re: intell. des. and Berra's folly

Glenn R. Morton (
Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:05:37 -0500

At 11:36 AM 6/1/98 -0700, E G M wrote:
>EGM>Here we go again, but before we start Glenn, Have you read Behe's

Of course. I read almost anything I can get my hands on in the area of
Creation/evolution/flood. What page and paragraph do you want to know the
words of?

Have you read the Bhagavadgita? Just checking reading lists. :-)

>EGM> Who said that humans were I.C.? They aren't according to Behe's

now it is my turn to ask if you have read Behe's Darwin's Black Box. A
look at the index shows Irreducible compexity defined p. 39. Going to p.
39 we find

"Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly
complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched,
interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the
removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly
(that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues
to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a
precursor system because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system
that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."~Michael J. Behe,
Darwin's Black Box, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 39

Elsewhere he defines it as:

"Because gated transport requires a minimum of three separate components to
function, it is irreducibly complex."~Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box,
(New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 109

By Behe's definition the surgical removal or your heart would make you
cease functioning. Loren mentioned that some parts are irreducibly complex
and others aren't. Your heart is part of an irreducibly complex system by
Behe's definition. But Behe wants 3 or more parts so I would suggest that
the surgical removal of your brain, or your liver or your intestines or
even your bone marrow would cause you to cease functioning.

I am not convinced that you have understood what Behe is saying. By the
way, are you convinced now that I have read Behe?

> What about biochemicals in cells that can be eliminated and the
>system still function? Does it function as well? no, but it is still
>the removal of a part, which, once again, by your definition rules the
>cell out of IC status. [see below about growth hormones]. Can
>> I remove some things from the world economy and still have it
>function? Sure I can ban tiddly-winks and the economy runs find. But
>try to eliminate in an instantaneous fashion all computers in the
>world and then see what happens.
>EGM> Hey Glenn, remove your white and gray matter and see what

Ahhh. So you admit that some parts of humans would lead to an irreducibly
complex system according to Behe's definition. (see above). This is
inconsistent with what you wrote above when you said that humans weren't
irreducibly complex. You wrote:

>EGM> Who said that humans were I.C.? They aren't according to Behe's

I disagree and have reproduced Behe's definitions.

But now that we have Behe's definition correct

I tell you what, you'll would be no more than a vegetable
>and remain so until death, but the world economy will continue to
>exists as long as humans remain on earth with an Intelligent capacity,
>computers or not.

Actually if you remove the entire brain, you will die quickly. There will
be no long term vegetative state because the brain stem is involved in
controlling things like the heart and other organs.

>EGM> Glenn, I'm sorry to hear about your son's problem. I'm almost
>now sure that you have not read Behe's book. He gives a few well
>defined and delimited I.C. systems, and some that are not I.C. but too
>complex to have been come about darwinistically (i.e., blood clotting
>was not IC according to Behe's [if my memory doesn't fail me]). Not
>everything in biology is I.C. like you seem to understand Behe is
>affirming. He's not.

You are wrong when it comes to Blood clotting. Behe writes:

"Blood coagulation is a paradigm of the staggering complexity that
underlies even apparently simple bodily processes. Faced with such
complexity beneath even simple phenomena, Darwinian theory falls silent."
p. 97


A Rube Goldberg machine required an intelligent designer to produce it;
therefore the irreducibly complex blood-clotting system required a designer
also." p. 218

I think you better re-read Behe. I don't recall him discussing at length
simple systems in his book on complexity.

>EGM> Sorry Glenn, I can not exchange with you if we do not hold to the
>same definitions.

I agree and I laid out Behe's definitions which you seem not to be using.

>Check your writing about trucks and wagons etc. This is the same
>"proof" of evolution used in a contemporary book in defense of
>Darwisnism, the author used the evolution of the (I think) Corvette.
>I will not continue this senseless chatter because your IC in not my
>IC, relativism is killing our efforts. Good day and my sincere
>congratulations to your son for his accomplishments.

Ed, I am not the one with the wrong definition here! Cite where Behe says
that blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Cite the definition of
Behe that you are using!

>PS: If God guided evolution, isn't then evolution a type of design?

I would absolutely agree here.

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information