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

Sunday, October 07, 2012

Why Intelligent Design is NOT Religious

This is in response to Kevin R, McCarthy's fact-free loser rant titled- Why Intelligent Design Must Be Religious.

He starts out with a big fat lie:
Forget the science, Intelligent Design (ID) proponents don’t do actual science anyway.

Nice projection asshole. Your position doesn't have anything to do with science, Kevboy.

Kevin spews:
The notion[1] of Intelligent Design is that something in the known universe is so complex that it requires a designer.

That is a big fat strawman, Kevin. geez, 5 sentences into your rant and already you have lied at least three times! No, Kevin, ID does NOT say anything about mere complexity. IDists have always agreed that mere complexity can arise without a designer. You are either ignorant of a fucking liar.

Let's look at Kevin's footnote:
1] I use ‘notion’ because ID hasn’t developed any testable hypothesis and cannot (as I will show) be used to describe anything about how the world works, so it cannot be called a theory..

More projection as Kevin's position cannot produce a testable hypothesis based on its proposed mechanisms. And it definitely cannot be used to describe anything about how the world works- how it breaks, maybe, but not how it works.

According to ID proponents, the designer is unknown and perhaps unknowable[2].

More like we do NOT need to know who the designer is BEFORE reaching a design inference.

That said reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.

Next Kevin asks:
Who is the Designer?

Covered that already Kevin. Also ID is about the DESIGN for the very reason I just mentioned.

Evolution and cosmology do not, in their definitions or methods or mechanisms, posit any philosophical premise. 

Yes they do, ie naturalism.

Unfortunately, if we don’t know the designer, then we don’t know the limits of what the designer can do and we can’t investigate the existence or non-existence of the designer. 

So much for archaeology. Ya see we know the limits of ancient people by studying what they left behind. We know they could construct Stonehenge, well because we have Stonehenge.

Unfortunately, it also gets ID into trouble with the First Amendment of the US Constitution because you can’t establish one deity over another in the US.

We don't posit nor do we require, a deity. However seeing that your position pushes atheism, that goes against the US Constitution.

It gets worse:

These are the only possible designer actions:
  1. The designer does everything.
  2. The designer started the universe and now does nothing.
  3. The designer is a meddler.
Nope. How about the designer designed what needed to be designed, set it and hands off? ID is perfectly OK with random processes, accidents and chance events occurring in a designed universe.

Unfortunately, this designer isn’t a deity. This designer is physical/natural law.

And where did those laws come from asshole? Nice that IDists have to explain the designer but you don't have to explain anything. Pathetic coward.

Both the fossil record and genetics support that whales and hippos have a common ancestor.

More like a common design. Ya see you don't have a testable hypothesis for accumulations of random mutations doing anything, so, according to you, you don't have any science to support your claim.

It should be obvious that humans and chimpanzees are not very closely related. But the human Chromosome 2 provides evidence otherwise.

LoL! Unfortunately HC2 does not do what Kevin sez. Ya see evos say the fusion occurred in the HUMAN LINEAGE ONLY.

ID proponents say their designer did ‘x’, then later on, when science finds a natural explanation for ‘x’, the ID proponents either drop the claim or alter the claim to only be a subset of ‘x’. 

1- we are STILL waiting for science to do so

2- THAT is how it works with archaeology, forensics and SETI.

The irreducibly complex systems in the immune system, the blood clotting cascade, the bacterial flagella, and anti-freeze proteins in fish have all gotten smaller and smaller as science has discovered more and more about them.

Wishful thinking. The more we know the better ID looks.

When presented with 50+ papers and a dozen textbooks about immune system evolution (one of which titled “Origin and Evolution of the Vertebrate Immune System”), Behe said, that he had never read them, but they didn’t answer his concerns that the immune system has no natural origin.

It is true- not one of those papers addressed the issue as to how blind and undirected chemical processes can produce an immune system.

There are only two, very tiny groups, which can even see the ‘evidence’ for ID.

Umm the vast majority of people on this planet accept ID. Just look at the polls.

There are no atheist supporters of ID.

Antony Flew- a long time atheist who finally gave in and accepted ID due to the evidence.

I am using this as an example of the fact that there is no unambiguous evidence for Intelligent Design.

Sure there is. However you are totally ignorant wrt evidence.

However, as we have seen, ID is based on and only on the concept of a deity. 

Liar. ID does not require a deity and it does not require the supernatural.

The designer made ‘x’ (where ‘x’ is the universe, evolution, our lives, or whatever) to appear like it was natural, when it is not. 

It doesn't appear that way. ya see natural processes can't even account for nature because natural processes only exist in nature.

hope that this article has covered all the possible options for the designer and why those options don’t work.

Nope, not even close. But I am sure that in your little bitty mind you think you have wrecked ID.

By pure logic, we can dismiss the notion of an intelligent designer.

Except Kevin doesn't know what logic is. We exist and there isn't any evidence that physics and chemistry alone can explain that existence.

To repeat, if there is a designer, then that designer is evolution (in the case of living systems) and physics/chemistry (in the case of everything else).

What "evolution" are you talking about you equivocating coward? And what is YOUR EVIDENCE to suppoort your claim?

What is the difference in complexity between a designed thing and a non-designed thing? If the ID proponent can’t answer this question then they cannot determine if something is designed or not-designed. Since this is the primary notion of ID, they have nothing.

A designed thing exhibits SPECIFIED complexity whereas a non-designed thing does not. And specified complexity is an indication of work.

How does one measure complexity (values, units, and process)? Since complexity is so important to ID, if the ID proponent can’t answer this (and none can), then there entire notion has no value.

1- Complexity itself is not important to ID

2- We measure it the same way everyone does- complexity is defined and we see if what we are observing matches the definition. then there is Claude Shannon and Kolmogorov, for starters.

What values of complexity indicate design? Why? Being unable to answer this means the same thing as 1 above. Their entire notion is useless.

Strawman. There aren't any values of complexity that indicate design, unless specification is a value.

Can you (or anyone else) tell the difference between a designed system (gene, structure, protein, etc) and a non-designed version of the same thing? This doesn’t really relate to the ‘divinity’ of Intelligent Design, but it is a killer question. If the ID proponent can’t answer this question, then everything they say is just so much hot air. If they cannot do this, then the entire point of ID (as a science) is useless.

Yes. And I would say that you cannot demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce a gene nor protein.

But anyway, after all of Kevin's lies, strawmen and total bullshit, he failed to define religion and demonstrate that ID is religious.

You are a complete piece-of-shit loser Kevin. And IF your position had any answers, or any science, then ID would go away. But you don't and ID is here to stay, based on science and evidence.

So to finish ID is not religious because it does NOT fit any definitions of religion. ID does not say anything about worship nor anything about giving service.


  • At 9:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Wedge document

    ID is is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
    - Dembski

    "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. [...] Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? [...] I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999

  • At 9:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The wedge document- so what?

    “Intelligent Design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief.”- Jonathan Wells “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”

    in “The Design Revolution”, page 25, Dembski writes:

    Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.

    He goes on to say:

    Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn’t even require there be a God.

    In his book “Signature in the Cell” Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:

    First, by any reasonable definition of the term, intelligent design is not “religion”.- page 441 under the heading Not Religion

    He goes on say pretty much the same thing I hve been saying for years- ID doesn’t say anything about worship- nothing about who, how, why, when, where to worship- nothing about any service- nothing about any faith nor beliefs except the belief we (humans) can properly assess evidence and data and properly process information. After all the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

  • At 10:31 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    He got caught. Just like you got caught, you YEC. neither of you are good liars.

  • At 10:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well YOU are a pathological liar, you cupcake faggot you.


Post a Comment

<< Home