Celine

According to the WSJ, they're back at it here at Iowa State. Or rather, relentlessly never stop:
Excerpt (mod. this is on-line, so I assume no copyright problem):

AMES, Iowa -- With a magician's flourish, Thomas Ingebritsen pulled six
mousetraps from a shopping bag and handed them out to students in his "God and
Science" seminar. At his instruction, they removed one component -- either the
spring, hammer or holding bar -- from each mousetrap. They then tested the
traps, which all failed to snap.

"Is the mousetrap irreducibly complex?" the Iowa State University molecular
biologist asked the class.

"Yes, definitely," said Jason Mueller, a junior biochemistry major wearing a
cross around his neck.

That's the answer Mr. Ingebritsen was looking for. He was using the mousetrap
to support the antievolution doctrine known as intelligent design. Like a
mousetrap, the associate professor suggested, living cells are "irreducibly
complex" -- they can't fulfill their functions without all of their parts.
Hence, they could not have evolved bit by bit through natural selection but
must have been devised by a creator.

"This is the closest to a science class on campus where anybody's going to talk
about intelligent design," the fatherly looking associate professor told his
class. "At least for now."


Perhaps I should walk across the lawn and visit our "fatherly looking assoc. prof." Any remarks here?

_Naturalist_

So he's a molecular biologist teaching at a university? Shouldn't he know better than to teach pseudoscience?

Plognark

Well, someone should give him hell.

You'll need a link to the original source though, just for your info.

Celine

sorry.:
The above reference is from the Wall Street Journal:
Darwinian Struggle: At Some Colleges, Classes Questioning Evolution Take Hold;
'Intelligent Design' Doctrine Leaves Room for Creator; In Iowa, Science on
Defense; A Professor Turns Heckler
Daniel Golden. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition). New York, N.Y.:Nov 14,
2005. p. A.1

Author(s): Daniel Golden

(Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Nov
14, 2005. pg. A.1

RBH

Celine,

You might get in touch with Tara.

RBH

Refused

Where's the kid in class that holds up the separated spring and says:

"Sir, the complete mouse trap doesn't function as it did before, but this spring in my hand has millions of uses on it's own... and so does that peice of wood... and that hammer... and that cheese tastes pretty good, too. And sir, when's the last time you saw two mice fuc...er, having sexual relations, to produce a mouse trap? Do you always compare imperfectly replicating organisms to wood and metal? Huh? Do ya? If so I need to drop this class while I can still get my money back."

Worldtraveller

Here is a good site that poses a reducibly complex moustrap, one peice at a time....

This example doesn't even have to go so far as to co-opt from a diferent purpose. It shows how it can be used, from a basic wire, as a moustrap, and simply improved upon.

Remember, for something to be irreducibly complex, it has to be shown that it can't work in any reduced form. Not necessarily that it has reduced function. This pretty much blows that analogy down, IMO.

Cheers,
Lane

Clivedurdle

Praise the IPU and FSM for "the evolving mouse trap" - ( I hereby copyright that phrase for a follow up to Agatha Christie!)

Monad

Irreducible complexity does not exist full stop. Even designed things are reducible - the point is Behe does think outside of the box and thus limits his understanding of developmental processes. I like Cairns-Smith's example of the arch which he uses to demonstrate how complex structures that stand on their own can evolve in a stepwise fashion even though to all appearances they would break down and not function if taken one step at a time. Trying to make an arch out of stone is a complex balancing act and at each step it is likely to break down. However if you create some sort of a scaffold first (could be just a simple mound of earth) and then remove the scaffold leaving the arch standing you will have created a structure that appear irreducible but only because you can't see the intervening stages without thinking outside of the box. IC does not exist - in nature or as a property of designed things - it is a propoganda tool pure and simple.

Thief of Time

in regards to the prof pulling out the mouse trap, all I can say is...
Oh snap.