For Elizabeth Liddle- How to Falsify Any Given Design Inference
Lizzie Liddle just cannot grasp reality. She sez:
That’s not because there aren’t perfectly good ways of inferring Design (there are), but because by refusing to make any specific Design-based predictions, Dembski’s hypothesis remains (let the irony not be missed) unfalsifable.
LoL! There aren't any chance-based predictions, Lizzie. There aren't any predictions borne from accumulations of genetic accidents, lizzie. But that doesn't stop assholes like you from declaring Darwinism/ evolutionism is science.
But I digress. The way to falsify any given design inference is by demonstrating chance and necessity are up to the task- ie can produce the pattern/ structure/ object in question.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.There you have it. If you weren't so scientifically ignorant, you would have known how to falsify ID.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.