Irreducible Complexity.

[CoxRox]

Here it is:

Re: Clarifying IC.‏
From: Michael Behe ([email protected])
Sent: 12 November 2008 17:08:50
To: Catherine

Hi, Catherine,

I don't have time to enter the fray, but you might recommend to your fellow conversationalists the following post:

http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/which-one-is-it/


Best wishes,

Mike



Catherine wrote:
Hello Mr Behe,

May I trouble you again on a few points I need to clarify? I have been discussing IC on an atheist forum and I need your help.

1. there seems to be confusion over the wording of IC's definition and what it means. We've been discussing sub sets having functions of their own (ie the syringe in the flagellum). Ic supporters are saying this does not preclude IC. The atheists seem to be saying that the definition does not allow for this and indeed would then suggest that these smaller machines with a function, are able to come together gradually and make new and better functions.
I'll quote this small section from one of my posts if I may:

'' Miller says this of the flagellum: 'By the logic of irreducible complexity, these individual components should have no function until all 30 are put into place, at which point the function of motility appears'

The article I've found discussing this says:

'This is a false deduction from Irreducible Complexity. IC does not forbid subsets of components of molecular machines being utilised in other molecular machines. IC simply asserts that there are multiple interacting components, the individual parts of which have no independent function.' '

The last part of the quote says: 'have no independent function'. This seems to be contradicting the first part of the statement?? and the atheists have picked up on this.

2. Miller claims that you can take away lots of parts from the flagellum and it will still function. I emailed the Discovery Institute about this quite a few months ago, but they have not come back to me as yet. I'm sure you have refuted this but cannot find any articles about it.

3. Do we need clarification regarding a 'part' that would be removed? Do you mean a sub set, an integral part?

I hope I have conveyed clearly enough the problems we are encountering. If time were to permit you, we are discussing this here:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-305.html

I am CoxRox. The thread hasn't been going long and is not very long yet.

I hope time will permit you to reply. Thank you in advance.

Best Wishes

Catherine


Rather disappointing to say the least. Did I ask the right questions?