Replies

s Not all mousetraps are designed.

t The one Behe was referring to was.

OK, I will try once to explain this to you. You see, the problem with irreducible complexity is that Behe and the others who think it has merit compare a natural system to a known designed system.

By pointing out that mousetraps can be naturally occurring, I have falsified IC. This is how science works.

IC is a circular reasoning scenario. They postulate a known design and say it can't be reduced. Then they go to a naturally produced system and assume it is designed and then "prove" it is designed. They can't tell by their "method" whether it is naturally produced or designed, because there is no science, just philosophical argument. It may seem logical to the uninitiated because
they do not realize that IC assumes its conclusions.

Natural systems have been shown to change and evolution is one of the processes by which this change occurs. There are direct observations of allele frequency changes in populations over time, with no "intelligent designer" needed to give the appearance of design.

Also, in a biological system there are some things that you can take away and they grow back, like the salamander's tail. IC and ID are both worthless unscientific sophistry.

Not all mousetraps are designed.

The one Behe was referring to was.

Ups, Behe missed his aim. He missed to show that a flagellum is not able to improve any more. That includes to use less atoms. Shredding an apparatus and show that it doesn't work any longer is childish

I read your article with Behe. Please read mine:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

My mother got an evolutionary mousetrap. Works rather better than Behe's one.

She calls her trap "Lucy". It's a really cute cat.