Proponents of ID argue by trying to establish that NS is not sufficient to explain how the many species now extent on the earth have arisen from simpler life forms. Some proponents of NS claim that any such argument is illegitimate unless its proponent also provides a plausible alternative explanation of how evolution has taken place. But if the same proponent of NS should also argue that abiogenesis is the result of chance and necessity (rather than design), then it wouldn't this claim likewise be illegitimate unless its proponent provide a plausible explanation of how abiogenesis has taken place?
How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
Comments