Reply to: RE: Flagellum Re: Definitions of ID
>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."
Cliff:
Then atoms and each element must be IC as well. So are each of the
subatomic particles. According to this definition of IC, the basis of all
matter is IC. This would suggest a few things things: 1) the basic laws of
the universe must have been intelligently designed, 2) the notion that
aliens created the universe in which they exist is pretty silly, 3) ID is
about God, and 4) that God must have created the universe in some way
similar to that which Van Till describes (which I agree with). I agree with
this form of ID. However, I don't think that this is what Behe and Dembski
are suggesting.
>
Nelson:
Atoms may or may not be IC, however, you missed the entire point of my post.
Atoms are not selected for, do not replicate themselves, do not undergo
mutations,etc. IC is a biological concept, and it describes molecular
machines. Apply the concept of IC to atoms is likeing applying Darwinian
natural selection to rocks.
>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."
Cliff
I agree. It is sometimes not possible to quantify a species or an
individual, especially when discussing something like an ant colony. But,
it is possible to quantify the differences between two individuals or two
species. DNA mapping does it all the time.
Nelson:
I think in terms of what is well-matched and what is interactive, has not
much to do with Irreducible Complexity.
Cliff:
It is also possible to describe the differences in species diversity of two
ecosystems. Why can't Behe or Dembski tell me which is more irreducibly
complex, a pocket calculator or a crystal? Are they even trying? I haven't
seen any indication that they are trying to address this criticism.
Nelson:
I have several problems with this "criticism". It does not address the
definition at all, it is more of a question of "what is more". It also does
not establish if either of those systems are actually IC.When one uses the
definition, there is really no confusion.
recall the defintion:
>"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."
Crystal:
What parts does it have? What is it's function? If you can assign it to a
function, can you conduct the "remove one part and it ceases functioning"
test? Careful analysis of crystals show that they are really just repetitive
patterns. "Order" instead of "Complexity". Why would you call this IC?
Calculator:
The calculator is much better. It is a single system with function and
parts. The first thing to do is figure out which parts can be removed
without the calculator losing it's function. In other words, what minimal
parts are necessary for the calculator to do it's work?
Dembski would say that the calculator would contain CSI.It has a purpose
which is teleology,there is forethought,proofreading is involved in order
for each calculation to be accurate in design, whic is quality control,etc.
I hope this helps.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 15:52:49 EDT