Re: [asa] RE: (irreducible complexity and evolution) design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)

From: Iain Strachan <>
Date: Wed Jun 17 2009 - 02:33:55 EDT

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Bill Powers <> wrote:

> Iain:
> I don't think this helps.
> Yes, it would be important that the proteins be available for the
> construction of the flagellum, but, it would seem, no more important that I
> have steel in making a car.

Once again I have little time to address fully your post, but up front it
seems to me this is a false analogy. Steel is a raw material but it has to
be formed (by something else) into body shells, wheels, drive-shafts, gears
etc. But the proteins are not like a raw material; they fold over into
different shapes according to the sequence of amino acids in the chain.
Hence they ARE the driveshafts, gearboxes etc. I think if one were to have
a biological analogy with steel, it would be the amino acids that get turned
into proteins from the template information on the RNA (ultimately DNA)

Is a car IC? Not at all, according to Behe's definition. Take away any
part of a mousetrap and you get a non-functioning mousetrap. Take out one
of the spark plugs from a car and it still runs, albeit not very well. Some
components are essential (like the battery, the engine), others are not
(like the windscreen wipers, the hub caps). The car can be reduced and
still function - hence it clearly isn't irreducible.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 17 02:34:09 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 17 2009 - 02:34:09 EDT