Re: Critique of ID & No Free Lunch

From: Loren Haarsma (lhaarsma@calvin.edu)
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 17:05:02 EDT

  • Next message: Loren Haarsma: "Re: Critique of ID & No Free Lunch"

    On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Terry M. Gray wrote:

    > Tim wrote:
    >
    > > 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.

    Because of this ambiguity, years ago I swore off the term
    "irreducible complexity."

    How about if we use:

    "Inter-locking complexity" for (biochemical) systems composed of multiple
    parts, all of which must be in place in order for the system to function;

    and

    "Non-evolvable" for systems which could not have evolved by known natural
    mechanisms.

    (Behe and Dembski tried (and failed) to show that, as a general rule,
    inter-locking complexity implies non-evolvability. (In fact, any such
    attempted proof must fail, because we already know of several
    counter-examples.) The jury is still out as to whether the I.D. folks can
    find any _particular_ instances of inter-locking complexity which are also
    non-evolvable.)

    Loren Haarsma



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 14 2002 - 08:58:42 EDT