Reply to: RE: Flagellum Re: Definitions of ID
>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.
Your original definition made no mention of exclusively for biological concepts. You say that bacterial flagellum are IC, but how do they replicate themselves or undergo mutations? They don't. That happens to the DNA. As I said, it appears that IC can be arbitraily assigned to whatever you want at whatever level of organization you want.
>Nelson:
>I think in terms of what is well-matched and what is interactive, has not
>much to do with Irreducible Complexity.
I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that well-matched and interactive parts don't have much to do with IC? I thought that was the heart of IC.
>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?
A crystal is composed of repeating molecules and atoms which give a crystal its characteristic shape, color, texture, and hardness. Take away one of those molecules and atoms and its characteristics change. Sounds like IC to me. What is a crystal's function? What is a dog's function? What is my function? Isn't that just another philosophical way of saying "Why am I here?" Can science determine anything's function?
If I turned on a radio and heard a continuous stream of SOS...SOS...SOS...SOS..., then according to IC I should just assume that it is a continuous repetitious pattern that conveys no information and has no function. But, if I know morse code, then I know that out there somewhere is a person in trouble and asking for help. If I take out the first 'S', then the message becomes OS...OS...OS...OS..., which is a very different message. The point of this is that you have arbitrarily thrown out the crystal as IC because you don't understand the language. It doesn't fit your definition, which is rather vague, and you summarily toss it out. One of my main points is that ID is making a very big claim that life on Earth, perhaps throughout the universe, and maybe the universe itself has been designed by some intelligent agency and they proponents of ID is offering only vague arguements that are rather difficult to support philosophically and have no support scientifically.
If Dembski or Behe could quantify any of their statements, then most of the criticisms of ID would go up in the air. But, they haven't, I don't know if they can, and it certainly appears that they aren't even trying.
Cliff H
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 16:54:44 EDT