Joined: Sep. 2004
Yep, those are the parts in DBB that got all this started. The second quote adds the phrase "by definition" to make it clear that IC includes as part of its definition that IC things can't be produced in steps, but the original (and oft-quoted) definition doesn't actually say that. The second part is sort of just snuck in there as if it were obvious (which is often what people mean when they use the phrase "by definition.")
Note also that the second quote shows that Behe makes another mistake we've been discussing today: that working backwards by subtracting a part actually retraces the history of the system. That is, he is assuming that the precursor of the system is in fact all the other parts interacting just as they do now, and since the other parts wouldn't now function with a part missing, such a precursor state is impossible.
But this does what I mentioned before: it sneaks into the "definition" an investigateable assertion about the history of the system that is false.
So the two quotes Bill has offered really lay the problem out clearly on the table.