RE: Flagellum Re: Definitions of ID

From: Brian D Harper (bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 12 2000 - 19:40:28 EDT

  • Next message: Ralph Krumdieck: "RE: Flagellum Re: Definitions of ID"

    At 03:56 PM 9/12/00 -0400, Nelson wrote:

    [...]

    >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.

    I'm confused. Are mousetraps irreducibly complex?

    Actually, this brings up an important point which I've
    tried to raise a couple of times. There are two separate
    aspects in IC. Irreducibility and complexity. Things can
    be irreducible but not complex. In fact, Maxwell once
    gave an argument from design based on irreducible
    simplicity. I can find the reference if anyone is interested.

    How about a mousetrap? Well, this is obviously irreducibly
    simple, at least in comparison with biological systems.

    With this is mind, let's try the argument by analogy. The hallmark
    of design is irreducible simplicity. Biological structures are
    irreducibly complex. There are no known examples where a
    designer has been able to fabricate a device that even approaches
    the complexity we find in biology. Therefore, biological structures
    are not designed.

    Brian Harper
    Associate Professor
    Mechanical Engineering
    The Ohio State University
    "One never knows, do one?"
    -- Fats Waller



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 16:29:50 EDT