I guess what you want to find is a biological I.C. system that did
indeed evolved darwinistically in order to refute Behe's argument.
When you find one let me know. The economy is not a good
counterexample for the reasons already given and besides it is not a
non-intelligent biological system (even if you could model it as one).
But then again, nobody sees the world as it is ..............
Chao
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: intell. des. and Berra's folly
Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Tue, 02 Jun 1998 18:26:04 -0500
Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Previous message: Keith B Miller: "Re: Anthropology"
Hi Ed,
At 07:17 AM 6/2/98 -0700, E G M wrote:
>At this point I have not kept my word because I'm still discussing the
>issue when I said that I was not going to anymore. This is a futile
>excercise. Everyone will continue to think in the framework of their
>own paradigm. I just hope and pray that you'll agree that Behe's IC
>definition was not meant to be applied in the macro-world.
Behe himself does not make this limitation. In fact, he uses it in
macrosystems like his famous mousetrap example. In his index he has
"mousetrap, irreducible complexity of 42, 47). Of the mousetrap he
writes:
The second step in determining if a system is irreducibly cmplex is to
ask
if all the components are required for the function. In this example,
the
answer is clearly yes." p. 42
The mousetrap IS a macrosystem that you are trying to say is not meant
by
Behe. Why does Behe use a macro example if he didn't think I.C.
applied to
macros? While you have read Behe, you have not understood Behe.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
Previous message: Keith B Miller: "Re: Anthropology"
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com