Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, May 28, 2015

An Open Letter to Casey Luskin

Earth to Casey Luskin- In a recent ENV post you stated:
Simply put, Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory and there's nothing illegal in teaching about a scientific theory (however scientifically flawed) in public schools.
Darwinian evolution is not a scientific theory- I bet you cannot reference a scientific theory of evolution. In the Prologue of "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?", geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti goes over that very thing. Your Discovery Institute Press published the book so perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it.

Teaching evolutionism in schools promotes atheism- it is an atheistic agenda that drives it. That makes it in violation of the FIRST amendment. (I did it again)

You then go on and talk about other Court cases. In one case you talked about knowledge. Yet filling kids' heads with hubris is the antithesis of knowledge. Teaching lies is never a good thing.

You also said:
The court made very clear that evolution is not a religious concept: "'Evolution' and 'evolutionism' define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. 
That "biological concept" is untestable and therefor not scientific. That means it doesn't add knowledge as it isn't based on knowledge

So it looks like we have had some very wimpy attempts at getting the Courts to see the light  wrt evolutionism. Strange that Casey can't see that but only sees them as failures.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Spot the Contradiction

Out of one side of their mouths we get:
"It doesn't look designed."
Out of the other side we get:
"The environment is the designer." 
The expected flailing:
"It doesn't look like it was designed by some intelligent agency. It looks like the environment donedidit, cuz we noes the environment, so don't question it."
These are the same people who think that "The Island of Dr. Moreau" is a science documentary. Just sayin'...

Monday, May 25, 2015

Climate Change- New Paper Says Most of the Change has been Natural

The 19th century saw an end to the little ice age. That means the earth has been getting warmer, thankfully. A warm earth is better than a cold earth.

An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures:

“There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records from several ice cores up to 8000 years before present were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature over a century was 0.98 ± 0.27 oC.
This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations. “
Thanks to CO2 the earth is greener now than back in the 19th century. Greener is better, too.

Water vapor is by far the dominant greenhouse gas. And soot on snow causes it to melt even when the ambient temperature is below freezing.

Neil Rickert Chokes Again

The more I read Neil Rickert the more it becomes obvious the guy is a miserable ignoramus. Neils spews a load of bullshit:

The trouble with the design argument, is that it is based on misunderstanding biology. The ID proponents repeatedly describe evolution as unguided random chance. But there is a lot of internal guidance within biology, so there is a lot of self-design. A developing organism is designing itself during that development period. The DNA is not an exact specification of how the organism should develop.
Fuck you Neil. We understand biology better than you ever will. Evos say evolution is unguided random chance. Sure they say that natural selection is non-random but it is only non-random in the sense that not all variations have the same probability of being eliminated. All mutations are still accidents, errors and/ or mistakes. It is all just contingent serendipity. There isn't any self-design, either. Neil just made that up because he is clueless. The DNA is not a specification of how the organism will develop.
Origin of life, I’ll grant as unexplained at present. But, once life originates, evolution is itself a design process. The ID people deny this, because to admit it would be to debunk most of their argument.
Only Intelligent Design Evolution can design. Natural selection and drift cannot design anything as they are impotent. Evidence, Neil- all of your spewage is evidence-free.

The reason why evolutionists exist is because they are all ignorant of science and even more so about ID.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Intelligent Design Should be Promoted as Science

The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.—Dr Behe
And reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer and any process used,  is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. Archaeology shows us how difficult it is to pin down a specific designer and methods used. And they deal with things that are within our capabilities to reproduce.
As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.- Wm. Dembski page 33 of The Design Revolution
The DESIGN is what we have to study. Again, archaeologists cannot study the alleged artisans of their artifacts.

Science asks 3 basic questions
  1. What’s there?
    The astronaut picking up rocks on the moon, the nuclear physicist bombarding atoms, the marine biologist describing a newly discovered species, the paleontologist digging in promising strata, are all seeking to find out, “What’s there?”
  2. How does it work? 
    A geologist comparing the effects of time on moon rocks to the effects of time on earth rocks, the nuclear physicist observing the behavior of particles, the marine biologist observing whales swimming, and the paleontologist studying the locomotion of an extinct dinosaur, “How does it work?”
  3. How did it come to be this way?
    Each of these scientists tries to reconstruct the histories of their objects of study. Whether these objects are rocks, elementary particles, marine organisms, or fossils, scientists are asking, “How did it come to be this way?”

The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.”

“A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.

Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.”

“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein

The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be.

As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge.

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Those are the core concepts of ID and to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems.

The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

Science has uncovered many biological structures, systems and subsystems that fit that description. And there isn't a P(T|H) for any of them.

The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.- Dr Behe
ID seeks to answer the three basic questions. ID is based on observation, experience and knowledge of cause and effect relationships. The design inference follows Newton's four rules and can be falsified.

So based on the definitions and criteria of science, Intelligent Design should be promoted as science. 

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Active Information is Complex Specified Information

Complex specified information is a general classification. Active information is a more specific class of CSI. It's a nested hierarchy thing- {CSI{active information}}. Perhaps that is what confuses evoTARDs who say that active information has replaced CSI.

The specification paper (Dembski 2005) was a supplement to CSI, and does not supersede it. Algorithmic specified complexity is a way to quantify any given specification. In that sense it seems to supersede or at least supplement that 2005 paper which used only probabilities to try to quantify specification.

Friday, May 22, 2015

SETI and Intelligent Design- Easily Correcting EvoTards

In SETI and Intelligent Design, SETI researcher Seth Shostak wants to assure everyone that the two don’t have anything in common.

However it is obvious that Seth doesn’t completely understand ID’s argument, and he misrepresents the anonymous quote he provided.

Seth on ID:
The way this happens is as follows. When ID advocates posit that DNA--which is a complicated, molecular blueprint--is solid evidence for a designer, most scientists are unconvinced. They counter that the structure of this biological building block is the result of self-organization via evolution, and not a proof of deliberate engineering. DNA, the researchers will protest, is no more a consciously constructed system than Jupiter's Great Red Spot. Organized complexity, in other words, is not enough to infer design.

Yes specified complexity is used as evidence for design. Not mere complexity and not organized complexity. A hurricane is an example of organized complexity. DNA is an example of specified complexity.

Seth on IDists on SETI:
"upon receiving a complex radio signal from space, SETI researchers will claim it as proof that intelligent life resides in the neighborhood of a distant star. Thus, isn't their search completely analogous to our own line of reasoning--a clear case of complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design?" anonymous IDist(s)
(No IDist claims complexity implies intelligence so methinks Seth made it all up)

What does Seth say about his made-up quote?:

In fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume.- S Shostak

1- All that quote said was about RECEIVING, not searching.
2- And if you did RECEIVE a signal of that nature you would claim it as such
3- By ID’s standards of complexity is related to probability your narrow band meets the complexity criteria

An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone - is not complex; it's artificial.- Shostak

Not if we use the word complexity in terms of (im)probability then that sine wave would meet the criteria.
However Seth does add some insight:
Such a tone just doesn't seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add -

Exactly! And if natural astrophysical processes can be found that generate such a tone then you would have to search for something else. Something that natural astrophysical processes cannot account for.

 SETI, ID, archaeology and forensic science all use the same processes to determine if intelligent design exists or not.

The New EvoTARD War Cry

Yes, it is desperation time for evoTARDs as they roll out a new war cry- "Living organisms do not look designed!" One moron even sed that the fact living organisms reproduce distinguishes it from other designs. What a dumbass as reproduction is the very thing evoTARDs can't explain!

What a bunch of desperate cowards. Too bad for them they don't have a viable alternative than Intelligent Design to explain living organisms and their systems and subsystems. So of course they need to try Jedi mind tricks.

Strange that Darwin, the only person to attempt a theory of evolution, devised natural selection as a process to produce design without a designer. There are articles about it too- see "Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer" by Francisco J. Ayala.

The desperation is obvious and pathetic. But it is all they have.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Joe Felsenstein- Still Clueless about Complex Specified Information

This fatass may be good at population genetics but that would be his limit. Joe Felsenstein sed:
With Dembski’s previous (pre-2006) definition of CSI (what Sal once called CSI1), CSI was intended as showing that the degree of adaptation was out of reach of “chance” processes such as pure mutation, unaided by natural selection. The Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information was then supposed to guarantee that CSI could not be achieved by other evolutionary forces, such as natural selection.
That is incorrect. CSI is about origins. Once natural selection kicks in we already have what needs to be explained.
The LCCSI turned out not to prove any such thing, so there was no guarantee that CSI1 could not be put into the genome by natural selection.
There isn't any evidence for it, either.
Enter CSI2. It has the additional condition that it’s not CSI unless there is no natural process that can achieve it. At which point CSI became, not a way to show that natural processes could not achieve the adaptation, but an after-the-fact designation that you could only use if you had some other method of proving that natural processes could not do the job. From a central tool, CSI became an after-the-fact add-on of no importance.
That is just Joe's ignorance talking as CSI does not have any such quality. It does not matter how it arose, it is just that no one has ever observed unguided processes producing CSI. We don't have any experience with such a thing. It would be like saying nature can build cars, produce artifacts, and everything else normally left to solely to intelligent agencies.

CSI exists REGARDLESS of how it came to be. There isn't any criteria that says CSI only exists if an intelligent agency did it. Joe Felsenstein is blissfully ignorant of CSI, ID and all ID concepts.

Felsenstein is confusing the fact that there isn't any known processes other than intelligent design that can produce CSI with "that it’s not CSI unless there is no natural process that can achieve it." That's an elementary school mistake from a university professor.