Why Behe offered a second definition of IC

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

In addition to @art’s point, this is not insubstantial:

@Bilbo

If a system (EC1) requires more than two proteins, Behe concludes that it is beyond the limits (“edge”) of Darwinian evolution.

This a strawman. No evolutionary biologists thinks that Darwinian evolution is sufficient to explain the complexity of what we see in life. Darwinian evolution was falsified in 1968. Why is Behe still arguing against a falsified theory?

Note, I’ve already pointed this out in that thread you seem to want me to quote to you repeatedly:

@swamidass

Still, for the IC2, most knowledgeable scientists agree that IC2 systems exist in nature too. Similar to IC1 systems, we are convinced that evolution can evolve IC2 systems also. Embedded in this definition is an important straw man. He writes “one or more unselected steps.” Here, into the IC2 definition is being smuggled a strict enforcement of “Darwinian” evolution. Now, anyone following biology at a basic level of competence knows that strict-Darwinian evolution was falsified a long time ago, in the 1970s. We now know that a large proportion of changes are near neutral or even slightly deleterious in the short term. So this dominant pathway of change is intrinsically ruled out by Behe’s definition.

Of note, this is an issue of trustworthiness:

@swamidass

H. J. Muller predicted and discussed M. J. Behe’s “irreducibly complex” structures in two different papers, one in 1918 and one in 1939. This prediction was made long before the genetic material was known or anyone had seen the structure of a “molecular machine”.

@swamidass

Now, why exactly does anyone still think that IC1 is a good argument? How can we trust anyone advances yet again the IC argument and is ignorant of this history?

I proposed some new versions of IC, which might actually make Behe’s point, however, they turn out not to be tractable.

@swamidass

• 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).
• IC5 – systems too complex (somehow) to evolve by known and unknown natural and providential processes (i.e. an empty set with no possible examples).

@swamidass

No one cannot possibly know if there are any systems that are IC4, as this seems like a question outside the bonds of science. It might be extrinsically beyond human knowledge. The ID movement almost never seems to engage IC3, though we evolutionary scientists are always looking at the boundary of IC3 and IC4 to expand our knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms.

Darwinism, though, everyone gave up a long long time ago, except people messing around with straw man arguments of evolution, like that in IC2.

Of note @Bilbo, you still have not even attempted to fulfill a basic request:

@swamidass

If you can accurately explain why I think it refutes IC1, I’d love to how where you think I went wrong in that assessment.

If you would like to continue the conversation @Bilbo, please attempt to answer the question. Why do we think that IC1 has been falsified?