Michael Behe's Original Definition: A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box, 39)
William Dembski's Enhanced Definition: A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)
Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition: An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)
1 comment:
You don't see this as a classic case of goalpost moving?
How can the two definitions from Behe be reconciled? The first says that nothing, NOT ONE THING, can be removed.
The second says, well something could be removed, but not everything, we just need SOMETHING that isn't explained.
This is not an "enhancement"; this is a completely new idea.
While it is true that scientific theories and hypotheses are always being tweaked and tested and fine tuned...that is exactly what is being done: fine tuning to a mostly complete whole. There is not complete change of basic definitions.
The fact that Dr. Behe would like to claim that these are the same idea should be a giant clue to his disingenuity. Stop riding a dead horse and call it a dead horse. By continuing, you only show yourself to be at odds with logic and reality.
Post a Comment