RE: Irreducible Complexity

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:30:06 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Pim van Meurs: "RE: Petersen's Book"
Previous message: Joseph Mastropaolo: "Petersen's Book"

Joseph: <<Then he showed that the parts could not "evolve" because there would be
no use for any of them until they all had appeared in the right order in the right place communicating, coordinating and connecting correctly according to the right blueprint. >>

Too bad that this is NOT what Behe did.

Joseph: <<Anyone betting against Behe would lose his shirt more than a billion
times.>>

A possibility, however unlikely though. Behe's confusion of irreducibly complex with 'could not have evolved' makes his argument quite weak.

Next message: Pim van Meurs: "RE: Petersen's Book"
Previous message: Joseph Mastropaolo: "Petersen's Book"