Joined: Aug. 2007
|Quote (sparc @ June 20 2010,23:26)|
|“To be as specific as possible, according to current ID theory, how and when and where was the bacterial flagellum designed,”|
While those are certainly interesting questions, it is only the materialist position that makes them the primary questions, and presupposes that they have a definitive, findable answer. For things which are designed, the material aspects of their design (how, when, and where) are much less relevant. For instance, when analyzing a computer program, I can interpret it just fine without knowing who programmed it, where they were sitting, or what device they used to input it. I can’t tell by looking at a program whether the typist used a Dvorak or a QUERTY keyboard. The main thing is that, with design, the logical relationships between the components are primary considerations, and the historical factors that led to those logical relationships are of secondary importance, and perhaps irrelevant.
But you (and by you, I mean Clive, who is currently the fastest way to communicate with UD) don't even take 'logical relationships' into account. The only thing you do is calculate probabilities, then pretend that this is somehow the same thing as design! That's your only 'logical relationship', and it's pretty weak.
Design is ALL ABOUT THE HISTORY. The only reason you cut the history out is because you know, in the case of biology, that history is EVOLUTION.
Take your calculations of complexity for example. For people who are obsessed with tiny bio-machines, you don't actually study machinery at all. You study brute force combinations of molecules. It's a bit like claiming to have written a chess-playing program when all it's doing is checking each of the 10^120 possible games of chess each move. That has nothing to do with how chess is actually played.
Is a machine with 3 cogs less complex than a machine with 4? Is a machine with two disconnected cogs less complex than a machine with two interlocking cogs? You don't know. All you can do is look over every machine that can possibly be made and see which ones don't work. Where is your 'logical relationship'? How is that your 'primary consideration'? What does that have to do with complex machines? Zero.
And also, if you don't care about the design process, then what was all that about irreducible complexity? 'Irreducible complexity can't evolve', remember? Seems like you were very interested in the historical process when you could take a stab at evolution.