Thus it was written in the epistle of Wirt Atmar,
>
> It's important to understand that I wasn't endorsing the argument of
> "irreducible complexity," I was merely explaining it.

There was no doubt here on that matter :-).

> Several people immediately wrote me privately yesterday and pointed out the
> fallacy associated with this line of reasoning. One person wrote, "In
> Talmudic logic there is a principle that says, "Because I have not seen it is
> not a proof that it doesn't exist."

Quite true.  Of course, one must be careful of double standards.  If the
intelligent-design folks can't say that regarding piecemeal hemoglobin (or
other things), then the evolution folks can't say it regarding a creator.

> Stated another way, for this particular circumstance, "I can see no way that
> all of these individual components could have come together in stages and
> have worked as intermediate structures, without the whole of them being
> there, therefore, because it is beyond my comprehension, ipso facto, there
> must have been a Creator."
>
> Deductive logic of this sort should always be viewed with enormous suspicion,
> regardless of the context.

Indubitubly.  I think suspicion is also warranted for an argument which depends
on something which has never been observed and which cannot be demonstrated to
work having existed successfully for a long, long time.

To give the equivalent statment, "I can see no way that all of these individual
components could have come together in stages and have worked as intermediate
structures, without the whole of them being there, but since evolution is true,
they must have done so."

But I'm afraid we've returned to the "Evolution is theory, not fact" argument
and IMHO that's been pretty well beaten to death.

> As to the specific nature of the "irreducible" argument and the functional
> nature of the hemoglobin molecule that Michael Behe raised and Ted may be
> talking about, there is a particularly well-written Creationist reply to this
> specific "conundrum" by Terry Gray, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI, which
> just happens to be Glenn Koster's alma mater. The reply is at:
>
>      http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/evolution/irred_compl.html

With due respect, I find an argument which depends on "well, I don't know
how it could have happened, but it seems reasonable to me" as shaky as one
which depends on "well, I don't know how it could have happened and it doesn't
seem reasonable to me."  I did think the point well put, though, that so long
as the Creationists depend on Science not being able to explain a particular
phenomenon, we are in a particularly vulnerable position.

Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([log in to unmask]), Info Sys, Southern Adventist University
          ==========================================================
We arrive at truth, not by reason only, but also by the heart.
                        -- Pascal, Blaise (1623-1662)
          ==========================================================
         Deep thoughts to be found at http://www.southern.edu/~ashted