quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:
So anything that is "designed" indicates "purpose"... a "function". Here's where IC takes the toll.. I prefer Behe's definition: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
'Purpose' and 'function' are not the same thing.
Even with a lay defintion of 'purpose' we are considering the
issue of 'intent' and thereby assigning an intelligence to
the design process (i.e. a designer).
Because a 'system' exists which performs a function does not
mean that it has 'purpose'.
Behe definition (nor acceptance of it) of IC is not at
issue. Most us a willing to accept that all IC means is that
if you remove a component the thing is broke.
We differ in that evo's can accept that IC's can develop naturally
while creo's don't.
I have suggested in the 'Irreducible Complexity' thread
that this reasoning is an argument from incredulity and
nothing more.
quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:
So anything that is irreducibly complex is intelligently designed and denotes purpose and indicates the existence of an "Intelligent Designer".
Nope.
Just because you break something by removing a component
doesn't mean it was designed with a purpose, and it certainly
doesn't follow that it couldn't have developed unaided.
That is a connection yet to be made.
The definition of design you have given (apart from making
'Intelligent Design' an oxymoron) relys on 'purpose'.
You still have to show that there was an 'intent' behind
anything (i.e. that is WAS designed). Effectively you have
said that in order for something to be designed it must
be designed by someone ... which is the only real design
criterion I can think of at present ... and that means we
have to seek evidence of a designer.
quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:
But ID can be identified by other means also. One major area of such identification would be (although off-topic), the cosmological anthropic principle: why are the constants of the universe so finely tuned to support life on this planet? Is it reasonable to suppose that this is the result either of chance or of some as yet unknown natural law?
Life developed by adapting to where it had to live.
The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth,
life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe.