Intelligent Reasoning

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

Friday, February 01, 2008

How to make Intelligent Design go away

It is funny, in a sad way, to watch imbeciles like Richie Hughes and blipey the clueless clown try to refute ID with the willfull ignorance.

Questioning ID, especially when it is obvious the questioner is clueless, is not going to make ID go away. However, depending upon the questions asked, you could expose yourself as an ignorant zealot.

And that is pretty much what Richie and blipey do on a daily basis.

But anyway, if you really want Intelligent Design to go away all you have to do is to start supporting your (anti-ID) position with actual scientific data.

For example:

Demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via purely non-telic processes.

Provide the scientific data which shows the transformations required can be accounted for by accumulating mutations.

Here is an easy one- tell me the specific methodology used to determine that the universe and life arose via non-telic processes.

Do those and not only will you shut me up but you would also receive a Nobel Prize! And you will have falsified ID.

But by asking ignorance-based questions all you are doing is exposing that ignorance.

10 Comments:

  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger scripto said…

    It's hard to disprove something as undefined as "Intelligent Design". What is the Design hypothesis? There are no identified design events, let alone any idea concerning process. Until ID can come up with some coherent testible hypotheses it can contribute nothing of substance.

     
  • At 10:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It's hard to disprove something as undefined as "Intelligent Design".

    But Intelligent Design is well defined. You just have to pull your head out of your ass and look.

    What is the Design hypothesis?

    Intelligent Design: The Design HYpothesis

    What is the anti-ID hypothesis? IOW what is the testable hypothesis for purely stochastic processes?

    There are no identified design events, let alone any idea concerning process.

    Yes the design of the cosmos is one such event as is the design of living organisms.

    As for the process we don't need to know that BEFORE reaching a design inference and reality dictates tat the ONLY possible way to make ANY determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    It took many years for scientists to determine how Stonehenge was built.

    Until ID can come up with some coherent testible hypotheses it can contribute nothing of substance.

    The anti-ID materialistic position doesn't have a hypothesis. It doesn't offer us any testable predictions. And it cannot be verified by science.

    It is obvious it offers nothing at all.

     
  • At 11:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    scripto,

    All you have to do to falsify ID is the following:

    Demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via purely non-telic processes.

    Provide the scientific data which shows the transformations required can be accounted for by accumulating mutations.

    Here is an easy one- tell me the specific methodology used to determine that the universe and life arose via non-telic processes.

     
  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger scripto said…

    Maybe my original questions were muffled because my head is so far up my ass. It makes typing a response really inconvenient (as you are no doubt well aware). Let me rephrase.

    Can you identify a design event involving a biological organism? If the "creation" of the cosmos is THE DESIGN EVENT I assume you wouldn't have a problem with evolution by natural processes from that time on?

    "As for the process we don't need to know that BEFORE reaching a design inference and reality dictates tat the ONLY possible way to make ANY determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question."

    Oh, but you do. If you are to make an analysis as to whether design or evolution is more probable you need to posit some design processes. The modern theory of evolution has proposed several. It's only fair.

     
  • At 3:42 PM, Blogger tft said…

    You know joe, you are incomprehensible, though you exist. I think this fact alone disproves your ID hypothesis.

     
  • At 4:04 PM, Blogger tft said…

    An analogy from common experience where the odds can be readily calculated is given by John Allen Paulos in Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences (1989), that the probability of a very mundane event such as that of getting any particular hand of thirteen cards in a game of bridge is approximately one in 600 billion. It would be absurd to examine the hand carefully, calculate the odds, and then assert that it must not have been randomly dealt. This perspective on the issue of improbability appears to bolster the position that characteristics of Earth that allow it to sustain life could be just a fortunate and/or accidental "hit", so to speak.

    You are just a moron joe!

     
  • At 6:20 PM, Blogger Thordr said…

    ID is an argument agaist evolution, not abiogenesis, I just wikied the pages on ID, abiogenesis is mentioned 0 times, evolution is mentioned 101 times. on the Abiogenesis page, ID is mentioned only once, and that is in a link. This type of argument is a beautiful example of a staw man, you should look it up. (ps, wiki is not a great resource, but is is usefull as a starting resource)

     
  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thordr sez:
    ID is an argument agaist evolution, not abiogenesis, I just wikied the pages on ID, abiogenesis is mentioned 0 times, evolution is mentioned 101 times.

    Wiki is very incorrect when it comes to ID- IOW Wiki is not a valid reference, especially concerning ID, which it blatantly misrepresents.

    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.

    (note tyhe word "origin")



    Please read the following:

    Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution

    Biological Evolution: What is being debated (again)

     
  • At 7:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can you identify a design event involving a biological organism?

    Umm this thread is for YOU to support YOUR PoV. IOW this is your chance to falsify ID by actually substantiating the claims of your position.

    "As for the process we don't need to know that BEFORE reaching a design inference and reality dictates tat the ONLY possible way to make ANY determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question."

    Oh, but you do.

    Reality dictates otherwise.

    If you are to make an analysis as to whether design or evolution is more probable you need to posit some design processes.

    Design is a process and it is a mechanism. Mechanisms in context

    The modern theory of evolution has proposed several.

    Yeah random variations culled by natural selection.

    So a design mechansim would be non-random mutations just as Dr Behe and Dr Spetner have been saying for years.

    Now focus on supporting YOUR position:

    Demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via purely non-telic processes.

    Provide the scientific data which shows the transformations required can be accounted for by accumulating mutations.

    Here is an easy one- tell me the specific methodology used to determine that the universe and life arose via non-telic processes.


    You may think the theory of evolution posits several mechanisms but it is funny that you can't present a hypothesis for any of them.

     
  • At 8:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tft,

    You are just an intellectual coward. This was your chance to actually support your position with scientific data and instead you post some irrelevant blurb.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home