-----Original Message-----
From: Cliff Hamrick [mailto:Cliff_Hamrick@baylor.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:22 AM
To: evolution; nalonso
Subject: RE: Flagellum Re: Definitions of ID
Reply to: RE: Flagellum Re: Definitions of ID
I think this exchange is a good illustration of the problem with IC.
Because there isn't any real quantification of IC (an IC index if you will),
it can be argued that anything or nothing is IC. When I first read articles
by Dembski discussing IC, he stated that some things are IC and must be the
result of an intelligent designer and some things, such as seasons are not.
I believe this was in "What every theologian should know...". However, I
would say that atoms must be IC. Each atom must have at least one proton
and one electron. Actually, each element is IC, because each one must have
a certain number of protons. And those particles are composed of certain
types of quarks. I don't even know what quarks are composed of. Or, I
could say that atoms are too regular and carry too little information to be
shown to be intelligently designed. If it sounds like I'm blowing smoke,
then it's because I am. But, this exchange would end quickly (smoke no
longer needed) if someone, anyone could quantify what an IC system is. Even
in ecology, which is a rather imprecise science, has indecies which quantify
the level of diversity of a community. Why can't Dembski or Behe do the
same?
Nelson:
I disagree. I think that IC is is clearly defined and does indeed apply to
the bacterial flagellum. As link itself states:
"When viewed as a motile stucture, the flagella is IC."
Thus it is realized that IC means:
"a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting
parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any
one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
Although the definition is useful, I do concede that it is not precise. As
another IDist has pointed out, in Biology it is difficult to be precise.
This is simply the nature of Biology:
"It is ironic that the words we seem to need in order to think productively
about biology, words such as 'homology', 'individual,' 'organism', and
'species,' have no precise meaning."
The nature of the universal ancestor and the evolution of the proteome
W Ford Doolittle
Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2000, 10:355-358
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 14:35:31 EDT