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

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Does the designer have to be "God"?- revisited

This seems like a good time to bring the following back to the top:

As I have stated many times now, the designer could be "God" and that it doesn't matter if it was/ is.

But does the designer have to be "God"?

Absolutely not.

The designer(s) need not have anything to do with eternal salvation nor eternal damnation.

The designer(s) need not have any requirement for worship.

All religions could be man-made nonsense and the designer(s) wouldn't care.

The designer(s) need not have supernatural powers.

The designer(s) need not be supernatural.

The designer(s) need not be caring, loving nor judgemental.

The designer(s) need not have a personal relationship with anything nor anyone.

The designer(s) need not be omnipotent, omniscient nor omnipresent.

Guillermo Gonzalez said that Intelligent Design does not require a belief in "God".

Any questions?

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

"Specificity is key to understanding"

In the thread If you really don't want to hear from me again, here is what you need to do, blipey said the following:
Specificity is key to understanding.

If that is true then one has to wonder what we understand about the theory of evolution and universal common descent.

I say that because neither of those offers anything specific. With UCD no one even knows whether or not the transformations required are even possible. And that means no one can specify the mutations that cause the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

Heck I have asked for a specific hypothesis to support the anti-ID position and have yet to see one.

blipey also said:
UCD is a pretty 2nd grade idea to grasp Joe.

Which I take to mean that evolutionitwits are dumber than 2nd graders because they cannot provide any specifics to support their position.

As a matter of fact UCD is determined by examining the circumstantial evidence in the light of UCD. Meaning if one was not biased towards UCD the circumstantial evidence would not support UCD.

In contrast Intelligent Design has (at least) two specified concepts that can be objectively tested-

1) Irreducible Complexity

IC- A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. Page 285 NFL

Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop. Page 287

Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism & if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit. Page 287

2) Specified Complexity/ Complex Specified Information

"Complex sequences exhibit an irregular and improbable arrangement that defies expression by a simple formula or algorithm. A specification, on the other hand, is a match or correspondence between an event or object and an independently given pattern or set of functional requirements."-- Stephen C. Meyer in Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology: From the Origin of the Universe to the Origin of Life

"For a pattern to count as a specification, the important thing is not when it was identified but whether in a certain well-defined sense it is independent of the event it describes."--Wm Dembski pg 15 NFL

"Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems."- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

"Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well."--Stephen C. Meyer in The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories"

"If it is shannon information, not algorithmically compressible, and can be processed by an information processor into a separate functional system, then it is complex specified information."--CJYman

The complexity limit is set to 500 bits. That is all specified information of 500 bits or more can be safely inferred to be from an intelligent source.

(That some people refuse to understand those concepts is not a refutation of them.)

Thursday, January 24, 2008

If you really don't want to hear from me again, here is what you need to do

So, when is your court date? I want to see it from the front row. Then, when it's over, I can laugh at the fact I'll never be hearing of you again.-blipey the clueless clown

blipey is clueless because Courts cannot keep me quite- even if I went to trial for introducing ID to public schools and lost. Courts cannot and do not rule over what is and isn't science.

The only way to keep me quiet is to actually find a way to objectively test the theory of evolution. IOW start by coming up with a working hypothesis for stochastic processes- in biology that means a hypothesis that includes culled genetic accidents as the prime cause of diversity.

Ya see if I go to Court over ID the opposition is going to be asked to produce that hypothesis. They are also going to be asked to provide the genetic data that accounts for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between allegedly closely related species such as chimps and humans.

Not only that but any claims made by the opposition that ID is religious will also have to be answered. That means demonstrating that ID says who, when, where, how and why to worship (good luck with that), as well as explaining how their position doesn't require anything beyond nature when it is obvious that natural processes only exist in nature and therefore could not have been responsible for its origins.

Yes, blipey, it will be fun to watch the opposition squirm in their seats when asked to support their position with scientific data when in reality all evolutionitwits can do is to point to minor variations and throw time in the mix to magically get the diversity of life.

It would also be interesting, that is if Barbara Forrest testifies again, if the following could be substantiated (From the Kitzmiller v Dover SB, 10/06/05 AM session, referring to Dr Behe Q is the defense attorney Mr Thompson; A is Barbara Forrest):

Q. He doesn't use religious terms to describe
11 these biological systems, does he?

12 A. No, not in those descriptions. When he is
13 referring to "design," though, that is a religious
14 term.

Forrest follows that with:

Q. That wasn't my question.

16 A. When he introduces that into his discussion,
17 then that would be a religious term.

Since when did "design" become a religious term? Did she really mean that?

18 Q. But that wasn't my question, was it?

19 A. In specific places in the book, yes, he does
20 speak about it in a scientific fashion.

21 Q. My question was, when he discusses the blood

22 clotting cascade, does he discuss that in scientific
23 terms? And your answer was yes, as I understand it.

24 A. I said when he introduces the concept of
25 design, then he's introducing it as a religious term.

Yes she did!!! That would never pass in any trial I am affiliated with. I would make sure the attorney hammered her on that.

And once we were finished exposing the strawman version of ID they are attacking it would become obvious as to why ID needs to be at least presented in schools- to prevent the blatant lies and misrepresentations (strawman arguments that have been refuted 1,000 times) that the evolutionitwits have been spreading unabated. IOW the evolutionitwits will be exposed for the intellectual cowardice that goes hand-in-hand with their Nazi thought police tactics.