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

Friday, August 05, 2011

Intelligent Design Tested and Confirmed

Dumbass, ignorant Kevin R. McCarthy has a blog titles Why Can’t We Just Test Intelligent Design and Be Done With the Question?-

ID has been tested, Kevin, and the tests confirm it. Unfortunately Kevin is too stupid to even understand what evidence is.

The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships, just as archaeology and forensic science is.

You want to disprove an object is an artifact? Demonstrate that nature, operating freely (ie no agency involvement) can produce it.

You want to disprove a criime was committed? Same thing- demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce the effect in question.

But anyway dumbass, why don't YOU tell us how to test your position?

Testing the claims of Intelligent Design-

(I posted the followingon Kevin's blog (he won't publish it as he has to censor)

As Dr Behe said:
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.

In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)

How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.

Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?

So how about it ole ignorant and cowardly fuck-up? If you want ID to go away all you need to do is actually step up and produce A) a testable hypothesis for it and B) positive evidence to support that hypothesis.


  • At 5:32 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So Mister science understander - things are confirmed by other things not happening?

  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Mister I cannot comprehend a damn thing evotard, it takes more than just eliminating other causes before reaching a design inference. Are you totally ignorant on how archaeology and forensic science works?

    We have only been over and over and over that.

    But anyway your position still doesn't have anything- loser.

  • At 6:54 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    I am a big fan of Dr Behe's work and I have read the book noted here, but I strongly disagree with his statement in your quote.

    He claims that if a bacteria with no flagella were to develop a flagellum, it would disprove his theory. WTF?? Intelligent genetics is precisely what ID predicts. If what he is saying is true, then ID is already falsified because bacteria DO have flagella.

    It is Darwin who thought changes occured over millions of years and then only after millions of failures by random accident. Evidence shows, as usual, that Darwin was entirely wrong.

    Irreducible complexity, but not ID, could be disproven if that flagella development happened through a series of other useful genetic changes one step at a time.

  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    " just eliminating other causes before reaching a design inference"

    How do you know you got them all, including the ones you haven't thought of?

  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…


    I take it that you didn't read what Behe actually said. If DARWINIAN processes can construct a bacterial flagellum Behe's claims about it, and any system of that or lesser complexity, are falsified.

  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…


    SCIENCE is NOT absolute proof- that means we don't have to eliminate all possibilities and that is also why it is called an INFERENCE.

    But thanks for continuing to expose your ignorance.

  • At 5:25 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You're confused by abduction vs. induction.

  • At 8:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You're confused by your ignorance.

    And you're really confused by your own false accusations.

  • At 10:19 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Joe: "I take it that you didn't read what Behe actually said. If DARWINIAN processes can construct a bacterial flagellum Behe's claims about it, and any system of that or lesser complexity, are falsified"

    I just went back and read it again. He does mention Darwinism in the preceding sentende, so it may be implied in the following sentences. If that is indeed what he meant then I stand corrected.

  • At 10:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah that is what Behe has always claimed. It is even in his testimony and deposition- and books.

  • At 10:34 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Joe: "... just eliminating other causes before reaching a design inference"

    Rich: "How do you know you got them all, including the ones you haven't thought of?"

    If you learn anything about science here, please understand that no theory, no matter how well supported by the evidence, is considered absolute. I maintain that intelligent agency as a cause of life is the most certain fact in the history of science, but even that is open to other possibilities coming along later and displacing ID.

    Dont hold your breath waiting, though.


Post a Comment

<< Home