| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
I've been mulling over potential arguments against ID from a biomechanics viewpoint. I've seen a number of mentions of the idea that the "knee is badly designed, the back is badly designed, the retina is inside-out etc..." What I have not seen discussed in this context, however, is the fundamental postulate of ID; i.e., that some biological systems are so complex that removal of even one part leads to failure - i.e.., "irreducible complexity." What I am thinking is that even if true, it would actually be an argument against an "intelligent designer," i.e., a competent engineer would design systems against such a situation, such as building in redundancies wherever possible (the multiple fuel sensors on the space shuttle come to mind). I've discussed this with Steve Vogel at Duke and he puts it (with his typical eloquence) like this "Maybe minimal use of redundancy, a terrifically effective way to reduce the change of disabling failure, in nature, is evidence against intelligent design. After all, if something is 99% reliable and backed up with something else that's 99% reliable, you have gone from a chance in a hundred of trouble to a chance in ten thousand. Two things don't halve the worry, they reduce it a hundred-fold!" Offhand, the only redundant systems I can think of is being able to breath through your nose and mouth and that some systems (e.g., kidneys) are paired. My question to all of you is if anyone else has made an argument along this line. If they haven't I'm going to pursue it further. -Roy -- Roy E. Plotnick Professor Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Illinois at Chicago 845 W. Taylor St. Chicago, IL 60607 plotnick@uic.edu office phone: 312-996-2111 fax: 312-413-2279 lab phone: 312-355-1342 web page: http://www.uic.edu/~plotnick/plotnick.htm "The scientific celebrities, forgetting their molluscs and glacial periods, gossiped about art, while devoting themselves to oysters and ices with characteristic energy.." -Little Women, Louisa May Alcott
Partial index: