RE: irreducible complexity and intelligent design (was Empirical Evidence)

Pim van Meurs (
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:15:35 -0700

SJ: I would suspect that Brian has "botched this". Proving that something was
irreducibly complex would refute *Darwinism* as a Designer-substitute, but
it would not of itself establish that it was intelligently designed:

Sadly enough IC has not lived up to its claims and it is pretty clear that IC systems can arise gradually.

SJ: Indeed, building-in redundancy against a future contingency, is what one
would expect of a far-sighted Intelligent Designer, but not what one would
expect of a `blind watchmaker'.

On the contrary, what you see as contingency is the outcome of a natural selection process. What however is much harder to explain is junk DNA and other idiosyncracies.

Nope IC and ID have little to offer scientifically. Of course in the area of rethoric it excels with proponents such as lawyer Johnson. In science however it fails.
Not surprisingly.