Kevin McCarthy- Choking on Dr Behe's "Mechanism"
Kevin is such a little dick. He's back to his "ID is anti-evolution" stupidity, apparently without realizing he is just quote-mining and equivocating in order to make his case.
Kevin McCarthy- asshole:
Dumbass. The quote says ID opposes natural selection is a very specific sense, Kevin. Please learn how to read. Natural selection can exist without having designer mimic properties. Not satisfied with that piece of stupidity Kevin presses on:The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/(my underline, everything else is original) Wait, I thought ID wasn’t anti-evolution. Natural selection is a part of evolution. Most would say that it’s a major part of any evolutionary theory. Yet, Intelligent Design, as found on Uncommon Descent (a blog “Serving the Intelligent Design Community”), is defined as being the opposite of or opposing natural selection.
Intelligent Design: An hypothesis that some natural phenomena are best explained by reference to Intelligent Causes rather than to only Material Causes. As such, Intelligent Design is the scientific disagreement with, and the falsifying hypothesis for, the claims of Chemical and Darwinian Evolution that the apparent design of certain natural phenomena is just an illusion. Intelligent design can also be viewed as the Science of design detection applied to natural phenomena. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf(my underline, everything else original) This is the definition from the Intelligent Design Network, a group that “seeks institutional objectivity in origins science”. Well, that “disagreement with and a falsifying hypothesis for [evolution]” is pretty strong language. In fact, that is number 1 in our definition of ‘anti-‘. If ID is true, then ‘Chemical and Darwinian Evolution’ isn’t true. That’s what falsifying means. If X, then not Y.
Right, DARWINIAN AND CHEMICAL EVOLUTION- meaning very specific claims wrt evolution. IOW Kevbo’s dishonesty is exposed- he switched out “Chemical and Darwinian evolution” with just “evolution”
Then he goes to Dr Behe who makes it clear that ID argues against Darwinian evolution and Kevin takes that to mean ID argues against evolution. Being against Darwinian and neo-darwinian evolution does not mean being against evolution. Only ignorant and cowardly equivocators thinks so. And here is Kevin…
You are a fucking asshole, Kevin. That you are forced to take what we say out-of-context proves that you are nothing but a coward.
Kevin McCarthy and his child-like intellect continues:
Unfortunately, Behe isn’t really our best choice for this. Despite being a fellow at the Discovery Institute and writing several books on the subject, he can’t even keep a straight definition of ID. Check the underlined parts of these two statements from the Dover trial:
Q If we could go to page 11 of your report and highlight the underscored text.
Yes, in that context he was talking some unguided processes vs. some design processes.Q.You say, “Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.” Correct?
A That is correct, yes.
Q That’s consistent with your testimony today.
A Yes, it is.
Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html
Q. And before we leave the blood clotting system, can you just remind the Court the mechanism by which intelligent design creates the blood clotting system?
A. Well, as I mentioned before, intelligent design does not say, a mechanism, but what it does say is, one important factor in the production of systems, and that is that, at some point in the pathway, intelligence was involved.
No, moron, we don’t know what that specific design mechanism was and knowing what it was is not part of Intelligent Design. It is not required to know how something was designed before determining it was designed.Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.htmlSo, while ID focuses on the mechanism of how complex biological structures arose, there is no actual mechanism. Got that, thanks Michael.
Context is always important and always ignored by Kevin. Kevin has prevented me from replying on his blog. That is how confident he is of his arguments...