Re: We heard you

From: FMAJ1019@aol.com
Date: Fri Sep 15 2000 - 12:17:48 EDT

  • Next message: FMAJ1019@aol.com: "Re: Flagellum Re: Definitions of ID"

    In a message dated 9/14/2000 11:31:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
    nalonso@megatribe.com writes:

    << Nelson:
    I would further predict that the flagellum actually requires more parts then
    Behe thinks for minimal function. That it is much more complex then we
    think, furthering the evidence for design.
    >>

    I thought that complexity and design were unrelated? Is the argument now that
    some IC systems could be 'designed' naturally but that the more complex ones
    are not? How can increased complexity suddenly be a furthering indicator of
    design?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 12:18:20 EDT