[asa] Re: [asa] Behe Responds To Ken Miller - Edge of Evolution

Dave O wrote:

<< Let's say I build an IC engine with four subsystems -- air intake, combustion, drive, and exhaust. Let's say further that that the air intake and combustion systems are duplicated apart from the engine. Standing alone, neither sub-system has any utility. However an additional component is added to each of them. This results in two new systems that each have utility and also are IC: say, a siren and a compressor. Could you reasonably claim that the siren and compressor falisfy the entire concept of IC? I don't think so. You still have to answer for the original IC engine from which those later two IC systems were derived. That's how I'm conceiving of your example. But maybe I'm missing what actually happened because I don't have the original paper on which you were commenting? >>

Dave S tends to be rather terse.

Along the same lines, responding to your previous post,
With any of these questions on biology, a big problem is
we are always finding new evolutionary strategies. For example,
with bacterial genomes, they have found what seems to be clear
signs of horizontal transfer. In essence, parts of one
organism's genome appear to have been transferred to another
species. Viruses also seem to be able to pick up the parts
of other viruses and add them to their own genome. I'm not
exactly clear how this can happen, but it does appear to have
happened on rare occasions (with viruses: even in recent
history).

So the assertion of irreducible complexity (IC) is difficult
to sustain for many scientist because, even if they cannot
immediately come up with a plausible scenario of a gradual
process, they would figure that there exists some natural
mechanism that we have not stumbled on. In effect, they
would prefer to "wait it out" until some reasonable mechanism
is found. Given the difficulties of doing good biology, this
is probably a good strategy.

So IC is rather difficult to prove. Even if everyone were to
let down their guard a little bit and admit that say X is not
explained, it wouldn't help, because the very next day, someone
could report that there is a simple explanation for X. With
something so complex like biology, it is really not possible
to have that kind of assurance that something cannot be explained.
Further, as it appears to have turned out, some of the arguments Behe
makes have potential explanations that work around it. Some
assert all, but I have not read carefully enough to decide that
personally.

At any rate, the idea of irreducible complexity in of itself
may have merit on some problems, but I do not think it will
prove useful for biology issues: particularly when used to
prove an anti-evolution position.

Generally, you ask penetrating questions and this I want
to encourage. Nevertheless, at least realize that
because of our (we scientist's) vast ignorance, there
is a lot we don't know about the mechanisms of life, and so
making strong assertions (even as scientists) is not particularly
wise. As I sometimes say, science is best done with the humility
switch set to the "on" position.

By Grace we proceed,
Wayne (ASA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 14 10:51:05 2007