From: DNAunion@aol.com <DNAunion@aol.com>
>>Richard Wein: In the case of irreducibly complexity, however, the
definition
>is so
>inadequate that ***almost *any* functional system can be considered IC***.
If
>there are no non-IC functional systems, then Behe's division of systems
into
>IC and non-IC collapses.
>
>I explained in my last post why ***almost any functional system can be
>considered IC, by Behe's definition***. I note that you snipped my
>explanation without comment. Here it is again:
>
>"If you can select the components freely, as Behe allows, then almost any
>system can be considered IC. For example, I can consider the human body to
>consist of two components: the skeleton and the soft tissue. These
components
>are well-matched and interacting, and removal of either of them causes the
>body to effectively cease functioning, so by Behe's definition, the human
>body is IC. And a similar line of argument can be applied to almost any
>functional system."
>
>DNAunion: I'll respond to this point this time.
>
>The skeleton is the skeletal system while the soft tissue component of the
>human body is not. Two separate "systems". In fact, the human body fails
as
>being IC based on the first few words of Behe's definition: "...a single
>system....". The humand body consists of the skeletal system, the
>reproductive system, the urinary system, the nervous system, the digestive
>system, etc.; and each one of these systems is itself composed of several
>parts (organs). So I don't think the degree of flexibility you claim to be
>present - that almost any functional system can be called as IC system - is
>present in Behe's definition.
There's no reason why a system cannot comprise two or more subsystems, as
you seem to be implying. Of course, Behe could, if he wishes, restrict
himself to those systems which cannot be divided into two or more functional
subsystems. But he doesn't do so. And, if he did, he might run into problems
with some of his own examples. Perhaps the immune system can be divided into
two functional subsystems. (I'm not claiming it can, but it's something that
Behe would have to consider if he restricted his definition of IC in this
way.)
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 07:52:26 EDT