Dennis R. Venema is Confused, Misguided and Full of Shit

-
That's right Dennis R. Venema is ooo freaking confused he is making himself into a fool and he doesn't even understand that he is doing so.

Who is Dennis R. Venema?

Dennis Venema is associate professor at Trinity Western University and a Senior Fellow with the BioLogos Foundation. He obtained his BSc and PhD in cell biology and genetics from the University of British Columbia.
His research interests include the genetics of tissue patterning in Drosophila, genetics education, and the interaction between evolutionary biology and Christian faith. Recently, he has authored a series of blog posts, discussing how information arises during evolution for the Biologos Foundation.
He and his family enjoy numerous outdoor activities that the Pacific coast
region has to offer.

He has been criticizing Stephen C. Meyer's "Signature in the Cell". However he has erected a strawman and criticized it. Meyer exposed his strawman and now Dennis has responded.

But when we read the response it is clear that Dennis is an imbecile as he misrepresents Meyer right off the bat. For example Dennis sez:

I find Meyer’s claim that biological evolution is irrelevant to the argument of Signature curious for several reasons.
The most important reason is that the basic argument of Signature requires that biological evolution be incapable of generating new information.

Wrong again you stupid freak. SitC is a book about biological ORIGIN, not biological evolution and Meyer even said that in his response to you. That means you are too stupid to understand anything and will just make up something and go ahead with your ignorant spewage.

Dennis goes on to say:

The strength of this argument depends on the assertion
that all information arises from intelligence.

Wrong again, asshole. What Meyer wrote and you quoted applies only to complex and specified information- that is Shannon information with a function/ meaning.

He follows that up with:

Note well: the argument requires that all information, in any form, be the result of intelligence, not just the information required for the origin of life.

Note well, Dennis, you are fucking clueless and perhaps close to being a complete imbecile. Shannon information does not require intelligence and Meyer never said nor implied it did. Quite the opposite and he says so right in the book you are criticizing! That tells me you didn't read the book.

Also Dennis, the argument is that blind, undirected physical processes cannot produce CSI and if you use biological organisms then you are begging the fucking question! Are you really that daft that you don't understand that?

In his conclusion Dennis confirms what I just said:

The reason for the paring down is obvious:
comparative genomics, experimental evolution, and developmental biology have shed too much light on the ability of biological evolution to generate
information.

1- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution you moron

2- There isn't any evidemnce that the processes you speak of are blind, undirected chemical processes as you are starting with that which needs explaining in the first place!

To sum up Dennis R. Venema does not understand Intelligent Design and has absolutely no clue on what Intelligent Design claims.

Hopefully he is better at his profession then he is at criticizing other people's position.