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, January 03, 2019

Alan Fox is a Clueless Loser

Alan Fox should just shut his ignorance-spewing pie-hole. On PS Alan spews:
Edge of Evolution and Darwin’s Black Box both made the same argument - that evolution was inadequate to explain, well, stuff.

No, you willfully ignorant asshole. It has NOTHING to do with mere evolution. It has NOTHING to do with evolution by means of intelligent design (IDE is exemplified by genetic algorithms).

Dr Behe's claims pertain to natural selection, drift and every other blind and mindless process.

Also Dr Behe makes the case for what can produce what we observe-> namely intelligent design. In "Darwin's Black Box" he stated the positive case:
“Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

That said Dr. Behe's claims can be refuted just by showing that natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process can produce what he claims was intelligently designed.

Alan's whining, lying and ignorant spewage are not going to get it done.


A Response to the Opinion of the Court in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District 

Again, as I made abundantly clear at trial, it isn’t “evolution” but Darwinism — random mutation and natural selection — that ID challenges. Darwinism makes the large, crucial claim that random processes and natural selection can account for the functional complexity of life. Thus the “burden of proof” for Darwinism necessarily is to support its special claim — not simply to show that common descent looks to be true. How can a demand for Darwinism to convincingly support its express claim be “unreasonable”? 

The 19th century ether theory of the propagation of light could not be tested simply by showing that light was a wave; it had to test directly for the ether. Darwinism is not tested by studies showing simply that organisms are related; it has to show evidence for the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection to make complex, functional systems.


Post a Comment

<< Home