In “At BioLogos, Confusion over the Meaning of ‘Irreducibly Complex’” (Evolution News & Views, July 9, 2012) Michael Behe tries respondingto Trinity Western’s Dennis Venema’s attempt to misunderstand “irreducible complexity”:
A correspondent recently pointed out to me that Dennis Venema, associate professor of biology at Trinity Western University, has posted a series of essays criticizing my work on irreducible complexity and intelligent design at the theistic-evolutionary website BioLogos. Although I don’t usually respond to arguments that are simply posted on blogs (life is too short), I’ll give a brief reply here.
I’ve read Professor Venema’s six posts and all of the comments. Most of the pro-ID points are right on the money. However, there are a couple of points that no one mentioned that I think are important for the discussion.
First of all, Venema confuses “irreducibly complex” with “essential for the viability of the organism.” The two concepts are not the same. For example, a person can survive with a missing blood clotting factor, where the IC clotting system is broken. Thus the factor is needed for the clotting system to work, but is not necessary for the viability of the organism. On the other hand, a factor can be essential for life but not irreducibly complex. A simple example is hemoglobin. It is not IC, but an organism will die without it. Thus Venema is mixing up concepts. …
But isn’t that the point of Biologos’ existence: Darwin is dead, but Christians can’t be allowed to know, because of all the Christian profs making a living electrifying the corpse?
See also: Mike Behe on a new journal paper admitting that Darwinian evolution can’t do complex systems