the hallmark of intelligent design, efficiency of design.
well, then i might go so far as to say that my computer was not intelligently designed. it sure isn't that efficent.
although, if the claim is that an ultimate intelligence designed something, well, it better damn well be a good design, yes. biological systems.... just aren't.
Why should IC systems be used as evidence for intelligent design? For no other reason than IC systems exist and it fits the presuppositions that Behe wants to promote.
i don't see the connection either. and the fact that compluters with evolutionary algorithms routinely evolve "irreducibly complex" systems kind of cuts the argument off at its feet. so you remove a part, and the system fails, or serves another purpose. so what?
that, and judging from that article before, behe's argument of complexity fails gloriously. my car is an irreducibly complex system, right? well, if i remove the transmission and the engine, it doesn't go. it does however roll down a hill quite well. the wheels also function fine on their own.
i was however, waiting for miller to pull out this argument, instead of his mousetrap argument:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/Mousetraps.html
The reason we have a medical field is to fix problems with ineffecient design.
a good point. i always like the "well that's the way god designed us, how are we to understand him?" argument which people are bound to give in return.
from the earlier post:
They assume ToE evidences against a Creator, then, to find/evidence otherwise is fair to deduce for a Creator.
evolution says no such thing. and no, logically, it is not. also, as pointed out, the fundamental assumption that ic systems cannot evolve is indeed false.