Re: paleonet ID and function

[Sally Walker <swalker@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

29 Aug 05 Hi Roy & all: Carl Zimmer's book for the public: Evolution, 
The Triumph of an Idea, the companion book to the PBS series talks about 
the imperfectness of Evolution (falliable retina, etc.).  But, at that 
time, ID was just a glimmer, so I would encourage you to pursue this. 
Additionally, I just received this info from a colleague, you may want 
to check it out (please excuse if someone already posted this!):

"Jerry Coyne has written a most comprehensive, enlightening, and
analytical point-counterpoint 13 printed page commentary on "Intelligent
Design" under the title:
The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name.
It appears on pp. 21-33 of the August 22-29 2005 issue of the New
Republic."

Also, check out the New York Times today in the Arts Section, if someone 
hasn't mentioned this yet...

Sally E. Walker


Roy Plotnick wrote:

> 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
>