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, August 16, 2012

Joe Felsenstein- Ignorant of Science

Joe sez:
In my view that’s the problem with the Design Inference that uses CSI. The problem is not in the definition of CSI, it’s in the assertion that it could not have arisen by natural selection.

Umm earth to Joe- evidence, you need some evidence that natural selection can produce CSI. And as of today you don't have any. However if you ever demonstrate natural selection can produce CSI then you will falsify a major tenet of Intelligent Design and ID would fall.

IOW Joe, it ain't an assertion that ns can't produce CSI. That inference is based on all of our knowledge of natural selection.


  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger Joe Felsenstein said…

    Hogwash! The assertion that natural selection cannot lead to organisms having CSI comes from William Dembski's work, where he says he has theorems that show this. It is from his Design Inference and his Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information. In my 2007 article I described how a number of people have found major holes in Dembski's proof, which is currently lying in ruins.

    It's called theory and that's how you do it. You don't prove the Pythagorean Theorem by going around empirically measuring lots of triangles. You prove or disprove it.

    Cue lots of insults ...

  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes Joe, YOU are hogwash.

    Ya see Joe there still isn't any evidence that natural selection does anything, let alone produce CSI.

    Ya see Joe, your position is in ruins and you don't even realize it. And it is very telling that you come here, spew you rhetoric but offer absolutely no evidence to support your claim.

    Typical evo-coward. Nice job, ace.


Post a Comment

<< Home