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

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Elizabeth Liddle, Choking on Intelligence

Lizzie, please just give it up as it is obvious you are just a clueless loser. As Dembski makes clear in Intelligent Design is NOT Optimal Design, intelligence refers to an agency:

I was recently on an NPR program with skeptic Michael Shermer and paleontologist Donald Prothero to discuss intelligent design. As the discussion unfolded, it became clear that they were using the phrase "intelligent design" in a way quite different from how the emerging intelligent design community is using it.
 The confusion centered on what the adjective "intelligent" is doing in the phrase "intelligent design." "Intelligent," after all, can mean nothing more than being the result of an intelligent agent, even one who acts stupidly. On the other hand, it can mean that an intelligent agent acted with skill, mastery, and eclat. Shermer and Prothero understood the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" to mean the latter, and thus presumed that intelligent design must entail optimal design. The intelligent design community, on the other hand, means the former and thus separates intelligent design from questions of optimality.

But why then place the adjective "intelligent" in front of the noun "design"? Doesn't design already include the idea of intelligent agency, so that juxtaposing the two becomes an exercise in redundancy? Not at all. Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design on the one hand and optimal design on the other. Apparent design looks designed but really isn't. Optimal design is perfect design and hence cannot exist except in an idealized realm (sometimes called a "Platonic heaven"). Apparent and optimal design empty design of all practical significance.

Is that really too hard for you to comprehend? Obvioulsy it is as you could not figure out that Dr Nim's descision making traces back to its creators and designers, ie intelligent agencies.


  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Hey joey, you claim that function/functionality, biological information, and meaning are the same thing and that
    meaning/function is observed, not measured/calculated by IDiots, and that meaning/function cannot be measured/calculated.

    You claim that CSI is Shannon information with meaning but that Shannon's measurement system doesn't care about meaning. You claim that ID is only concerned with meaning/function, not Shannon information. You claim that you IDiots use the terms specified information and complex specified information to differentiate between Shannon information and information that has meaning/ function.

    You IDiots claim that CSI (Shannon info PLUS meaning/functionality according to you) is measurable/calculable even though you, joey, also claim that meaning/functionality is not measurable/calculable and that you IDiots do not try to measure/calculate meaning/functionality (CSI).

    So, joey, I have some questions for you:

    In regard to the CSI 500 bit thing, what are the bits in, the Shannon information or the meaning/function?

    If the bits are in the Shannon information, not in the meaning/function, then how can 'CSI' (meaning/function that you say is differentiated from Shannon information's meaningless "information carrying capacity") be measured/calculated to determine whether the 'CSI' contains 500 bits of meaning/function?

    If 'bits' can only be measured/calculated in Shannon information, not in meaning/function ('CSI'), then why do you IDiots claim to be able to measure/calculate the amount of 'CSI' (meaning/function) contained in biological things or anything else in 'bits'?

    Have you told dumbski and gordo that 'CSI' (meaning/function) cannot be measured/calculated and that IDiots do not try to measure/calculate meaning/function ('CSI')? Just wondering.

  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi TWiT,

    Yes we have to differentitate between Shannon and useful information because of moron losers like you. Are you proud to be a moronic loser?

    AGAIN, asshole, meaning and function are observed. Do you realize that science relies on observations?

    Biological specification refers to function, asswipe and Dembski has already stated that we do not try to measure meaning. Read "No Free Lunch" you ignorant faggot.

    Also if your position could support its claims then you wouldn't have to worry about CSI. Which means the only reason you attack CSI with your belligerent ignorance is because your position has absolutely nothing- just like you.


Post a Comment

<< Home