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

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Jeffrey Shalit, Still Clueless

Over on TSZ Shallit sez:

This is literally true, but quite misleading. In neither forensics nor archaeology will you find any discussion of looking for “intelligent intervention” as such. Instead, what investigators of those fields might be interested in are questions like: is this just a random bit of chert, or was it worked by humans? Did this person die of what might be termed “natural causes”, or was it homicide. There is absolutely no discussion of “intelligence” as a general category; in all cases people are trying to determine whether something is an *artifact* – the characteristic product of human agency. Nobody serious in forensics or archaelogy is hypothesizing aliens as the agents, for example.

Irrelevant. The investigators may assume a human did it but that is about it. And they know that humans = inteligence/ intelligent intervention, duh. BTW if we detect design and humans could not have been present, as in SETI, what then Jeff? If we find an artifact on Mars Jeff would have us ignore it because humans couldn't have done it.

He goes on to spew:

And, needless to say, nobody in forensics or archaeology uses Dembski’s methodology or the pseudomathematics of any other ID advocate. Indeed, ID advocates claim their methodology *would* be useful in such fields, but have never given a single example where this was the case. Elsberry and I challenged ID advocates to come up with a *single* example more than ten years ago, and no one has even *tried*. 

LoL! No one has tried to explain how it was determined that all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes. But I digress. The explanatory filter is used by all investigators. If not they are conducting science incorrectly. And the math doesn't really apply to objects. It only applies to what is easily converted to bits, like nucleotides.

Shallit's position doesn't have any methodology- Dogma doesn't need methodology. And yet he feels like he can dum,p on ID because obviously he doesn't understand how scientific investigations proceed- See Newton, Occam and parsimony.

And then Shallit implies that evolutionism is science. Too bad no obne can figure out how to test it, Jeffrey.


Post a Comment

<< Home