Intelligent Design Tested and Confirmed
Dumbass, ignorant Kevin R. McCarthy has a blog titles Why Can’t We Just Test Intelligent Design and Be Done With the Question?-
ID has been tested, Kevin, and the tests confirm it. Unfortunately Kevin is too stupid to even understand what evidence is.
The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships, just as archaeology and forensic science is.
You want to disprove an object is an artifact? Demonstrate that nature, operating freely (ie no agency involvement) can produce it.
You want to disprove a criime was committed? Same thing- demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce the effect in question.
But anyway dumbass, why don't YOU tell us how to test your position?
Testing the claims of Intelligent Design-
(I posted the followingon Kevin's blog (he won't publish it as he has to censor)
As Dr Behe said:
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.
In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)
How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.
Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
So how about it ole ignorant and cowardly fuck-up? If you want ID to go away all you need to do is actually step up and produce A) a testable hypothesis for it and B) positive evidence to support that hypothesis.