RE: Behe's Irreducible Complexity Squared

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:05:14 -0700

Joseph: <<With regard to Stan Zygmunt's inquiry on Behe's irreducible complexity, I offered a short summary explaining the impossibility of even a part of a living structure "evolving" because nothing functions or has any use without all the parts which must be structurally and functionally interfaced according to a unique blueprint and all of this requires complex nanoengineering.>>

Yes, a common misunderstanding given the fact that it can be shown how 'irreducibly complex' systems can evolve gradually. Perhaps the choice fo the word 'irreducibly complex' is somewhat unfortunate since the definition already sets the conclusions. Irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve. Of course that's where the problem lies.

Joseph:
<<And this isn't the whole story either. The further we go, the greater the complexity and the more incredible the level of nanoengineering required for even one cell. In my opinion, Behe's book is one of the most powerful refutations of "evolution" to come along in the last 100 years.>>

If ignorance means refutation then you have a point

Joseph: <<Note. I put "evolving" and "evolution" in quote marks because the idea,
more than 2,000 years old, exists and has existed only as a fallacy.>>

As I said, ignorance.