> 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:
I want to be sure that I am understanding this definition correctly and
perhaps my confusion falls under your concession that the definition
is not precise. It seems to me that, once you strip away non-essential
parts, you will reach a point with *any* biological unit where taking away
one more part will cause the unit to cease functioning. Is it at this
point that you are declaring the unit to be IC? There is no biological
entity (that I know of) that can continue to function if you completely
dismantle it. Therefore, it seems to me, by this definition, every living
thing must be declared IC. Is that correct?
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 16:31:52 EDT