Is it possible to identify the parts of a system objectively?
This question has some serious implications for ID theory. The reason for this is their reliance on Irreducibly Complex (IC) systems.
It is possible to identify ANY system as an IC system, by simply identifying the entire system as a single part. Removal of that part makes the system stop functioning, since removal of the entire system will leave us without a functioning system.
On the other extreme end, you can identify the parts of any system as the atoms the system is built up out of, and removal of any of these atoms (in virtually all cases) will propably not affect the system much. So removing a single atom from a system commonly regarded as an IC system, will not affect the system.
What this boils down to is this: Whether a system is an IC system or not, depends GREATLY on how the parts are identified. You can identify a specific system as IC, and someone else can identify THAT SAME system, as NON-IC, by simply identifying the parts of that system differently.
Which brings us to the following definition of an IC system by William Dembski:
A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)
(emphasis mine).
Notice the bolded part?
Clearly, for IC to be useful as a concept by itself, there should be a method a person can follow, and OBJECTIVELY identify the parts of any system, BEFORE that person can figure out if a system is an IC system, or not.
If I take a 100 people, and tell them to use this method on a specific system (a bicycle for example), the output of the method should be a list of parts. Since there are 100 people, we should end with 100 lists of parts. They should be IDENTICAL. If they are not, the method was not objective.
Now, for any ID proponent to use IC systems as evidence FOR ID, they must first have such a method. Lets call it the PLG (parts list generator) method.
In fact, since the definition of ID provided by Dembski REQUIRES the PLG method to be in place for his definition to have meaning, clearly Dembski must be in posession of such a method already.
I may be wrong when I say this, but I am pretty sure such a method does not exist. If it does not, IC systems are not evidence for ID, since without such a method, IC systems cannot even be IDENTIFIED objectively.
So, can any ID supporter provide me with the PLG method?
Edited by BVZ, : No reason given.
Edited by BVZ, : No reason given.
Edited by BVZ, : No reason given.