Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Beyond subotimality shepherdmoon@yahoo.com Mar 03, 2005
To Mark Perakh:

I just wanted to write to tell you I found your recent article, "Beyond subotimality: Why irreducible complexity does not imply
intelligent design" thought-provoking and well done.

My only comment is regarding this passage:

ID advocates are welcome to accuse me of offering a caricature of their idea, but it cannot be helped when a concept's essence sounds like a caricature or a parody; the idea that "IC implies ID" can most succinctly be rendered by a maxim: stupid, therefore designed.

I can see what you are driving at, but I think in the last part, it might be better to replace "stupid" with "unstable." To say "unstable" is closer to your point in the article and avoids the unnecessary charge from IDists that you are merely engaging in insults. Even though the charge is false, it will waste time and distract from your excellent point.

I think your point about how suboptimality is in fact a core part of the IC argument is excellent and should be developed further.

Just my two cents.

Related Articles: Beyond suboptimality: Why irreducible complexity does not imply intelligent design

Title Author Date
Beyond subotimality Perakh, Mark Mar 04, 2005
Dear Shepherd:

Thanks for your kind words about my essay "Beyond Suboptimality." Regarding your suggestion (to replace the word "stupid" with "unstable") I'll think it over, although
I don't understand what such a replacement will accomplish. IC is not about stability, it is about irreducibility which obviously is tantamount to unreliability, so a system that is designed and is IC is stupidly designed.
I'd like to point out, though, that the "maxim" in question contains no insult of anybody since the word "stupid" in that "maxim" is not
characterizing any person(s) but is rather part of a compressed rendition of the idea "IC means ID." I thought this was clear from my text, but perhaps it may cause some confusion. So, again, I did not refer there to anybody as being stupid but only offered a concise definition of the idea that IC implies ID, as explained in detail in the essay's text.

Best wishes,

Mark Perakh
Related Articles: Beyond suboptimality: Why irreducible complexity does not imply intelligent design