From: Terry M. Gray (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 12:50:50 EDT
> 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.
I agree with the first sentence here and, hence, have no trouble
stating that an irreducibly complex structure could have evolved.
However, if you read Behe's definitions and descriptions carefully,
you will hear him say that if the system could have evolved then it
is not irreducibly complex. This was part of the point of a paper I
gave a the ASA meeting in 1999 at John Brown University. If you want
me to produce the quotes (from Behe) I will.
>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?)
I agree that there is confusion but his *definition* of irreducible
complexity includes non-evolvability (something along the lines of
"it couldn't have been assembled in a gradual fashion because the
whole is needed for the function and the function is what natural
selection works on").
As I have done in the past, I will also distance myself a bit from
"gradualism" by allowing for the possibility of Kauffman-like
self-organization ideas--things just glom together and sometimes they
turn out to be useful assemblies which can then be fine-tuned by
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 13 2002 - 12:52:16 EDT