`  ::Behe's definition of 'irreducible complexity': ``a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.``  If you removed any one of the items you mention, your computer would stop functioning.  Therefore, it is irreducibly complex.  ::Also, you will get no argument from the main ID proponents that ID is not about ultimate origins.  Dembski's reply to the question, in The Design Revolution: :::``Design-theoretic explanations are proximal or local explanations rather than ultimate explanations.  Design-theoretic explanations are concerned with determining whether some particular event, object, or structure exhibits clear marks of intelligence and can thus be legitimately ascribed to design.  Consequently, design-theoretic reasoning does not require the who-designed-the-designer question to be answered for the design inference to be valid.  There is explanatory value in attributing the Jupiter Symphony to the artistry (design) of Mozart, and that explanation suffers nothing by not knowing who designed Mozart.  Likewise in biology, design inferences are not invalidated for failing to answer [the] who-designed-the-designer question.``  ::At least learn a little bit about a subject before criticizing it. 6 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)`