RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

  Topic: The Death of Irreducible Complexity, Archive of ARN postings< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 49
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2005,21:10   

Also for the record, this is Dembski's sole response:
IC will be around for a long time. The nonsimplifiability criterion that I introduce is not nearly as onerous as RBH makes out. True, nonsimplifiability, as I apply it to IC, says that no simplification is possible for a system performing the basic function. But basic function, as I define it, also includes the way in which the function is performed. Thus, it is no simplification of the bacterial flagellum to substitute a paddle, say, that doesn't spin, that propels the bacterium through its watery environment, and that is simpler. Any simplification of the bacterial flagellum would have to be a bidirectional motor-driven propeller. If there's a concession in my treatment of IC with the nonsimplfiability criterion, it is more than made up for in requiring IC only for irreducible cores. Irreducible cores extend IC to many systems that Behe's original definition did not cover. It is often easy to show that cores are nonsimplfiable even if the apparatus as a whole isn't.

"There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things, one is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex." - Danny Hillis.

  5 replies since Mar. 27 2005,21:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]