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

Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution- Again

-
"Evolution" can mean several different things:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

[Eugenie]Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." -Dr Behe

Intelligent Design is OK with the first 5 definitions of "evolution". ID argues against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes. The main reason is that there isn't any way to test the premise, which leads to a complete lack of supporting evidence.

(EvoTards are adherents to definition #6)

18 Comments:

  • At 4:11 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Blah, blah, blah, yet you've been calling people evotards for years.

    "evo" is from the word evolution Joe-boi. You're a dolt, and as dishonest as it gets.

     
  • At 6:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    the whole tard:
    yet you've been calling people evotards for years.

    Yup, because those evotards think that blind, undirected processes produced life and its diversity.

    They are dolts. Just like you.

    The whole tard:
    "evo" is from the word evolution Joe-boi.

    No shit dumbass...

     
  • At 1:12 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    ID argues against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes.

    Argue away. When you have some actual evidence then perhaps you'll get somewhere with your argument.

     
  • At 1:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have and I have presented the actual evidence.

    OTOH you can't do anything but drool and be the fool.

    Anthony Flew, long time atheist and fighter against ID, actually ended up agreeing with ID because of the scientific evidence.

    Go figure...

     
  • At 1:39 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    I have and I have presented the actual evidence.,

    Present if for peer review or it's meaningless.

    And if the past 6 years have shown you one thing, it should have been that already.

    If you've made you case with evidence then why not get it peer reviewed and published?

    Afraid of making too big a splash all at once are you?

    Yeah, perhaps best to wait another 6 years.

     
  • At 1:44 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Anthony Flew, long time atheist and fighter against ID, actually ended up agreeing with ID because of the scientific evidence.

    Is that the best you've got? Really?

    In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article by religious historian Mark Oppenheimer, who stated that Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book.[6] His book praises several philosophers (like Brian Leftow, John Leslie and Paul Davies), but Flew failed to remember their work during Oppenheimer's interview. The article provoked a public outcry, in which atheist PZ Myers called Varghese "a contemptible manipulator."[26],

     
  • At 1:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Present if for peer review or it's meaningless.

    Strange, your position doesn't have anything in peer-review supporting its grand claims.

    But anyway the evidence for ID is in peer-review and biology textbooks, just as I presented it.

     
  • At 1:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Anthony Flew, long time atheist and fighter against ID, actually ended up agreeing with ID because of the scientific evidence.

    OM
    Is that the best you've got? Really?

    I got it and it works.

    BTW Flew himself refuted that piece of bullshit you posted.

    You are a fucking piece of shit.

    bye-bye

     
  • At 1:48 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Strange, your position doesn't have anything in peer-review supporting its grand claims.

    And that is relevant to you being unwilling to put your ideas to the ultimate test because?

    But anyway the evidence for ID is in peer-review and biology textbooks, just as I presented it.

    What you believe and what actually is are two very different things.

    Citation please.

     
  • At 1:49 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    BTW Flew himself refuted that piece of bullshit you posted.

    The go edit the Wikipedia page then. If you can provide evidence that Flew refuted that then your edit will remain.

    I don't expect that section to change any time soon.

    If you have proof of your claim then edit the page! That's how the site works!

     
  • At 1:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And that is relevant to you being unwilling to put your ideas to the ultimate test because?

    ID is tested every day.

    What you believe and what actually is are two very different things.

    Nice projection.

     
  • At 1:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    The go edit the Wikipedia page then. If you can provide evidence that Flew refuted that then your edit will remain.

    Wikipedia openly admits that it isn't a credible source you freak.

     
  • At 2:01 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Wikipedia openly admits that it isn't a credible source you freak.

    Citation please. Prove it!

    And what difference does that make? If you have evidence to back up your claim the you can provide it and your edit will remain.

    It's a very simple thing to understand. You have evidence. Your edit remains.

    I can only conclude that you don't have any such evidence.

    Citation please.

     
  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Anthony Flew talks

    BTW asswipe provided the citation from wikipedia in a iscussion with richtard hughes.:

    Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.

     
  • At 4:43 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Wikipedia is not considered a credible source for academic studies.

    Is that what you think this is Joe?

     
  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If it isn' credible for academic purposes...

    Besides I provided the link that refutes your wikipedia nonsense.

     
  • At 6:01 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Besides I provided the link that refutes your wikipedia nonsense.

    Yet if I link to something about the origin of life on Wikipedia it becomes a source that cannot be trusted, but when you link to it that's a refutation.

    Way to go double standards boy.

     
  • At 7:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Besides I provided the link that refutes your wikipedia nonsense.

    OM:
    Yet if I link to something about the origin of life on Wikipedia it becomes a source that cannot be trusted, but when you link to it that's a refutation.

    You are an imbecile!

    I linked to an article that quoted Anthony Flew and his words refute what your wiki source said about him.

    Go away, you are finished here- your continued stupidity is no longer welcome.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home