Re: humans irreducibly complex?

David J. Tyler (
Tue, 25 May 1999 11:37:44 GMT

Rich Daniel wrote on Mon, 24 May 1999

> Ah, but Paracelsus made the claim that humans are irreducibly complex.
> I interpret this as meaning that we have physical structures that cannot
> have evolved from an apelike animal. This in turn would imply that we
> have genes that cannot have evolved. If something different was intended,
> please clarify.

I understand your comments insofar as they relate to Paracelsus.
However, I was concerned because he was not giving an appropriate
emphasis to design thinking - and was certainly not using the concept
of irreducible complexity as Behe would. Having made my point,
Paracelsus can answer for himself.

> > But is the gap to be found in the type of tasks genes do? If the
> > answer is "no", then why should creationists expect to see a gap
> > here?
> I don't understand your point here. Are you perhaps saying that the
> gap is caused by the presence of an immaterial spirit in man, rather
> than anything physical?

As you may be aware, design theorists are interested in
discontinuities as well as continuities in nature. These
discontinuities are "gaps" of a physical nature. With humanity,
there is the additional consideration that man is spiritual as well
as physical - but that was not to the fore when I responded to your

Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.