Re: General Response

Brian D Harper (
Thu, 27 May 1999 18:05:06 -0700

At 04:44 PM 5/27/99 -0600, Susan wrote:


>>Some of you have misrepresented Behe's definition of irreducible
>>complexity to
>>try to argue that humans can still live with certain parts missing. The
>>Behe gives is for strict application to molecular systems, but a more general
>>definition of IC would be that the function of a system transcends its
>After I read the first sentence in this paragraph, I was about to go get a
>copy of Behe's definition of IC for you to read, when I then read your
>second sentence. Which is self-contradictory. We were using Behe's
>definition. Now you are telling us that you have your own definition. Which
>is nothing at all like Behe's. ok.

Just a quick comment about Paracelcus defn. of IC. Behe's defn. is
vastly better as the function of a system will always transcend
that of its collected parts, else why call them parts? :)

An example. Water is irreducibly complex since surface tension,
wetness, etc. are not to be found in the parts: oxygen and

Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University

"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert