Re: Critique of ID & No Free Lunch

Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 09:55:50 EDT

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: The Flood Hoax"

    Terry wrote:
    >Now if you're going to say, as Mike does, that if it
    >evolved then it apparently wasn't irreducibly complex,
    >then you're just being tautological. [...]

    I don't think that is a tautology; "confused" would be a better
    description. Systems are determined to be IC (v1.0) on the basis
    of extant, physically determinable properties, independent of
    any considerations about their origins. Behe's work was to show
    that IC-ness is a reliable indicator of design.

    Suggesting that a system couldn't be IC because it evolved
    suggests some confusion about the logical order of the
    argument. (Perhaps one of the in-house philosophers could
    provide the common name for this class of fallacy?)

    Tim Ikeda

    Errata - In my last post I transposed a couple crucial
    characters. "Sigma-45" should actually read "sigma-54"
    (product of rpoN). There are other typos too, but this
    one might have left a few people scratching their heads...

    mail2web - Check your email from the web at .

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 13 2002 - 11:00:45 EDT