Replies

"Function is integral to the concept of IC in that the whole machine performs that function, and is in a sense defined by its capacity to perform the function."

Between function or aim is in this context no difference. So with a function a designer is introduced to IC or IC is impossible without a designer.

"The same logic would mean that natural selection is a circular reference to evolutionism. Is that significant?"

No. Evolution happen through natural selection. Selection is the process of evolution. IC is a lemma or corollary to support ID. Because ID also could happen to non-IC systems but you won't be able to detect it there. So you need IC to detect ID. But IC needs some D. So you see the circle?

"The example of a block of ice bridging a ditch doesn't quite rise to an irreducibly complex machine."
My ice block is a very simple IC machine. I think that atoms count as components as in the flagellum. The real problem with IC is the way to the solution. IC would split the block in two or more pieces and argue they would be to complex to evolve.

"Try to make your argument with flagellum."
If you like, you can compare my arguments with research about the flagellum.
The Flagellum Unspun

I've studied the link you posted and replied to it here in depth. (Someone, I hope someday, will offer advice to me on how to post a link to another post...)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492906/posts?page=169#169

Between function or aim is in this context no difference. So with a function a designer is introduced to IC or IC is impossible without a designer.

I disagree because the flagellum has a function whether it was designed or arose through evolution.

Because ID also could happen to non-IC systems but you won't be able to detect it there. So you need IC to detect ID. But IC needs some D. So you see the circle?

Not true. Design is detectable in a host of other examples besides IC. If you saw a chess board with all the pawns stacked on one side, one in front of the other, you would recognize that configuration was impossible given the laws of chess and the chance that the pawns could move in their given spaces. You would have to conclude something acting outside the laws of chess and chance contributed to the layout of the board. ID argues that examples like this are abundant, from the fine tuning of the universe to IC to abiogenesis and more. You are treating ID and IC as if they are two swirling arguments, each totally reliant on the assumptions of the other.

My ice block is a very simple IC machine. I think that atoms count as components as in the flagellum.

You can't possibly hope to compare the delicate, interwoven complexity of the finest machine in existence to a bunch of atoms lined up in a row because they are cold. It doesn't pass the smell test, but if you want, go to the following link for a complete argument. Go to page 18.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf