Re: Critique of ID & No Free Lunch

From: Craig Rusbult (craig@chem.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 09:34:48 EDT

  • Next message: Craig Rusbult: "Re: Critique of ID & No Free Lunch"

          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. [...]

          and Tim responded,
    >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.

          Yes, and people within the ID community (including Behe)
    agree that -- especially in the original definitions in his
    book -- Mike didn't do a very good job of clearly defining IC
    and distinguishing between the two different questions that
    Loren calls inter-locking complexity and non-evolvability.
          As pointed out by Terry, there is strong evidence that
    some currently-IC systems have evolved, so a claim that ALL
    IC-systems are non-evolvable is falsifiable and is (at least
    at a level that seems reasonable) falsified. But a claim
    that "SOME (one or more) currently-IC systems could not have
    evolved" is scientifically interesting and worthy of serious
    consideration and investigation.

    Craig



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 16 2002 - 11:04:48 EDT