Greg Cootsona on Intelligent Design: He isn't Even Wrong

 -

Surprise, surprise. Another ass who is ignorant of science and ID opines on both. Greg Cootsona: What about Intelligent Design.

It starts out bad and gets worse:

Intelligent Design, or ID, presents an alternative to young-earth creationism for those who resist the idea of evolution through natural selection.

ID does NOT resist evolution through natural selection. The fact is there isn't any evidence that evolution through natural selection can do what is claimed it can and has done. The science behind its efficacy is lacking. He goes on:

Three interlocking core convictions summarize ID, but certainly do not exhaust it as an intellectual project: 

1. Neo-Darwinism is inherently atheistic and materialistic. 
2. The intricate design of creation points to an intelligent designer (thus the movement’s name).
3. Evolution cannot be sustained on scientific grounds because of its inability to address key elements in nature, such as presence of information in DNA and irreducible complexity.

1- True.  2- Also true. 3- ID is NOT anti-evolution. The debate is whether or not evolution occurs by design or is it all blind and mindless.

Then a lie slips in:

In October 2004, the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania altered its biology curriculum to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution, with Of Pandas and People to be used as a reference book. 

LIAR! The school was only going to read a statement to the students. No one was going to teach ID. Also ID is not an alternative to "evolution". It is an alternative to blind watchmaker evolution, ie evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. That is an untestable and unscientific concept.

It just gets worse:

Theologically, though, ID runs into significant problems. For one, we don’t have to believe that God’s creation is detectable through irreducible complexity.

ID is not about God. ID doesn't care about theology. And it is just that IC exists and as such requires an explanation. If you think that blind and mindless processes can produce it then ante up and demonstrate such a thing. Or admit the claim is unscientific because it can't be tested and shut up.

AGAIN- I do NOT care if you don't like ID. But the fact remains that there isn't a viable scientific alternative to ID. And it remains that to refute ID all one has to do is demonstrate that blind and mindless processes are up to the task. And if you can't, then stuff it.

Greg Cootsona is just another ignorant ass.