Irreducible Complexity.

[CoxRox]

Hi Leo, I understand a lot better now that IC has not undergone these rigorous scientific tests and understand why there is so much controversy surrounding it. (I hadn't realised that Miller is a Roman Catholic). I will not pursue this any further. I got a reply tonight from Behe, but he did not respond to my 3 brief points I had asked him to clarify for me, and enclosed a link to a web site. So he wasn't much help. He said he is very busy, but I thought he could at least try to answer the points I raised. I wasn't asking for a 2000 word dissertation.

regards Catherine

[leo-rcc]

I did know Kenneth Miller is a Roman Catholic (but I didn't think it mattered so I didn't mention it) and like many different scientist he does a remarkable job of keeping his religion separate from his job. Just like Georges Lemaître for instance, a Belgian RC priest, that proposed the big bang theory. This in contrast to a Kurt Wise for instance which story I find tragic.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hi Leo, I understand a lot better now that IC has not undergone these rigorous scientific tests and understand why there is so much controversy surrounding it. (I hadn't realised that Miller is a Roman Catholic). I will not pursue this any further. I got a reply tonight from Behe, but he did not respond to my 3 brief points I had asked him to clarify for me, and enclosed a link to a web site. So he wasn't much help. He said he is very busy, but I thought he could at least try to answer the points I raised. I wasn't asking for a 2000 word dissertation.

regards Catherine

If he could post a link you would think he could have replied to 3 brief points. Maybe he didn't know the answer. Maybe he has to think about it . He could have given an answer right a way of course. But I think his answer would have looked foolish. I dunno. Well to me of course any answer about IC that supports ID would very probably sound foolish!
But like I said if he could post a link you think he could have replied to 3 brief points! Unless he's got a message reply bot that just replies with links to sites!

[Tiberius]

Could you possibly post the link so we can all have a read?

[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?

[leo-rcc]

The questions look okay to me. Mind you, he really is a busy man so I am not to surprised he could not go into detail. I sometimes get a good response from Prof. Dawkins for instance, sometimes none at all. It happens.

[Tiberius]

It's a bit of a shame he didn't give you anything else. Then again, perhaps he has learnt something since he failed to defend ID at the Dover trial.

[CoxRox]

I'm sure he is a very busy man and I didn't really expect him to join our discussion. I did think he could have addressed the three points ,briefly even. Nevermind.

[chatpilot]

Irreducible complexity as defined by Behe has already been shot down and refuted by real scientists.Behe is a molecular biologists but at the same time his answer for those things he does not understand always points to a creator.ID is nothing more than Creationism in an Armani instead of wearing a suit from the Salvation Army second hand store.

When you try to mix religion with real objective and natural science it is no longer science,it becomes pseudo-science.

[CoxRox]

Well, not quite. ID (I don't mean the movement) doesn't always rule out evolution. Many believers of ID know through science etc that the earth is billions of years old etc, and don't have problems with the advances of science. They claim that God is behind the big bang etc. Science is explaining the rest. Creationism usually refers to the wacky fundamentalists who believe Genesis is literal etc.