Prof. Behe's debate with Prof. Moran

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I was going to quote that too. Let’s have @Bilbo get the full set of refs in place. I note, also, that this is precisely the issue that I called Behe out on. He did not address this with Moran. It appears to be an intentional rhetorical strategy that is misleading, and it matches exactly what I have said in the past: Which Irreducible Complexity? - #7 by swamidass

This is why I will always be insisting on clearly stating which IC argument we are using. It appears that Behe is arguing against IC2, as if proving IC2 is impossible would also prove IC3 and IC4 are impossible. This is just an invalid argument. As a biologist, I agree that IC2 is impossibly improbable, but think the real questions are about IC3 and IC4, which Behe never really engages.

What do I mean by these ICs?

@swamidass

• IC1 – one way to objectively measure the complexity of any system, including biochemical systems, independent of the inference whether or not a specific level of complexity is evolvable.
• IC2 – systems too complex (somehow) to evolve by positive selection alone (e.g. the long falsified theory of Darwinism).
• IC3 – systems too complex (somehow) to evolve by known natural processes alone (e.g. the best current understanding of evolutionary science).
• IC4 – systems too complex (somehow) to evolve by known and unknown natural processes alone (e.g. a total understanding of natural process, forever inaccessible).

To be clear, Moran cannot possibly know if every single thing in the whole world is IC4 reducible. So he overstates the evidence. Perhaps God did involve somewhere at some time in an important way, and it either didn’t leave evidence or we have not found it yet (even in the flagellum!). That is why Moran can’t make the final claims he makes. Behe, however, never rigorously considers (though he regularly dismisses) IC3 and IC4 category explanations. This is the achilles heal of his argument, the equivocation between these four IC definitions.