yoh, yeah I saw this article long ago I'm only concerned with the first part though - the one which tackles the concept of irreducible systems: I fail to see where this man has proven the concept to be logically wrong. He is the one that misses the point. The fact is that the concept of an irreducible system cannot be 'disproved'. You can apply it on biological systems (as he does further, and others have done) and show them not to be irreducible. If no biological system is shown irreducible, it is an irrelevant concept for understanding their origin. Take the mousetrap (yet again Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ): if you can't make it work without a base - whether it be wood, a floor, etc. then it must be irreducibly complex. A human being was the intelligent agent that assembled it. Mr. Robison is absolutely wrong in claiming that it is not irreducible complex simply because he can make a base-free mousetrap. It isn't base-free. He uses the floor as a base. Using a different element (like the floor here) does not make a system different in its interactions. The whole point here is the number of parts and the kinds of interactions fulfilling a certain goal. In systems you must look for the nature of the interactions between the parts. The nature of the parts themselves can be important, but they won't fully explain the general prinicple(s) of a system. For example, I could also change the hammer by a different thing, like a spoon, and claim that it is clear that a mousetrap is not irreducible. Then no system can ever be irreducible because we can always substitute one part with another. This is circular reasoning. The point is not whether there can be substitution, but if all parts must be present. If a complex system uses 100 vital parts, then you'll always need 100 parts. How can a system with a certain goal (or goals), which needs a fixed number of components to accomplish this, arrise through substitution? It can't. The mouse trap is clearly such a system. It cannot arrise by changing from floor to wooden base. Furthermore, the concept of irreducible complexity is not useless. (I'm not interested in the secret agenda of Behe or other ID'ers. Let this be clear ). It makes you think about the nature of systems and their origins. It doesn't necessarily makes you ignorant like Robison claims. It is also a tool of falsification for those who believe all biological systems have arisen through evolution without intelligent agents. It's a pitty that it comes from a man like Behe. Otherwise it may have gotten the proper attention it deserves. Does anyone here knows about simulations of the evolution of biological systems that have been conducted?