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

Monday, September 21, 2009

Specific Design Mechanisms

-

Even though design is a mechanism, there are specific design mechanisms that apply to ID.

I have already mentioned Dr Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues", artificial selection and directed chemistry.

Directed chemistry refers to the software that runs the show in living organisms. DNA is not the software. It carries it.

To add to the list we also have a targeted search- which as I have also mentioned before- which is exemplified in the paper "Evolving Inventions" SciAm Feb 2003.

11 Comments:

  • At 10:30 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots." - Dr. William Dembski.


    Who's right Joe, you or him?

     
  • At 2:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Who's right Joe, you or him?


    About what Richtard?

    Just because ID isn't a mechanistic theory doesn't mean there aren't any specific design mechanisms.

    IOW once again you expose your ignorance and stupidity.

     
  • At 2:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Page 112 of "No Free Lunch" by wm. Dembski:

    "Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production.A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question."

    But I have been over and over this already.

    Obviously Richtard is just too tarded to understand such simple and basic concepts.

     
  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production.A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question."

    So he's saying Design is NOT a mechanism, ...unlike you. who is correct?

     
  • At 3:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So he's saying Design is NOT a mechanism

    Only imbeciles like you say things like that.

    You do realize that I have already gone over this also.

    Dembski is talking about SPECIFIC processes.

    Why do you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

     
  • At 3:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do you throw like a little girl too?

     
  • At 4:10 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production."


    why would we have to, we already know the mechanism - design!

    Oh, right, design isn't a mechanism.

     
  • At 4:17 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, you quote PZ quoting someone else who frankensteined some of his text together sans context. Par for teh course honesty from IDisits, one supposes.

     
  • At 4:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard,

    I provided the ORIGINAL quote from PZ along with the ORIGINAL context.

    IOW once again you prove you are a dishonest and ignorant freak.

     
  • At 4:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production."


    why would we have to, we already know the mechanism - design!

    According to the definitions of "design" and "mechanism" design is a mechanism.

    However as I said it is NOT SPECIFIC.

    Dembski is referring to SPECIFIC processes.

    Again your tard doesn't refute anything.

     
  • At 4:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Source of PZ's threat:

    http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/

    Source of Richtards tard- just click here

     

Post a Comment

<< Home