>My serious criticism is that a mousetrap is absolutely useless as an analogy
>to the question of design in living systems. Living systems reproduce.
>Mousetraps don't. Paley's watch doesn't. We recognized the need for design in
>a mousetrap or Paley's watch precisely because of it's inability to procreate.
as well as:
>In the case of the mousetrap or Paley's watch, we are forced to conclude
human design and manufacture because there is no pathway to the fully
developed state. >Why? Because moustraps and watches don't reproduce!!!
This simple fact rules >out all possible pathways to the mousetrap system
state EXCEPT for human design >and manufacture. If mousetraps are granted
reproduction, there is a pathway, >Rube Goldberg-ish as it is.
It may only be because of my scientific naivete, but I had some trouble with
Glenn's statements.
For one thing, it doesn't seem to me that the design arguments automatically
rules out the conceptual reproduction of the systems (i.e. mousetraps)
involved. Since we were dealing with Mike Behe's mousetraps, it would be
helpful to take a look at DBB, where he officially sets out his case. On
the *very next page* after he addresses the mousetrap question, Behe allows
a non-living system to reproduce, via production in a factory and small
"mutations" in the manufacturing process. His argument was that *in spite
of* the reproduction and mutation, the gap between one system (a bicycle)
and another (a motorcycle) was so great as to rule out the possibility of
gradualistic Darwinian descent.
I'm still trying to get all of the arguments straight, but this seems to me
to be a very compelling argument. My first experience with it was,
ironically, in a critical review of Michael Denton's _Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis_ on the web. If you want, you can find it at:
http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/denton.html
The author was attempting to rebut Denton's claim that Paley's watch was
incapable of changing through gradual evolution into something substantially
different. One phrase in particular caught my eye:
"we can even imagine nonfunctional digital components being added until they
finally begin to work. . ."
Again, it may only be due to my non-experience with the subject, but HOW CAN
THIS BE? A proto-digital watch (or a proto-mousetrap or a proto-motorcycle,
for that matter) doesn't strike me as being functional AT ALL. It is true
that I may only be ignorant of possible explanations, but one grows
suspicious when the alleged explanations aren't forthcoming. . .
I'm sure there are some on this list who are laughing out loud by now.
Please-tear this message apart! I learn the fastest when confronted with my
own mistakes.
Andy
________________________________________________________
Andrew S. May
asm4676@unix.tamu.edu
http://lech-86.dorms.tamu.edu
Class of '00!!
Texas A&M University
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it wouldn't be
called research, would it?" -Einstein
________________________________________________________