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

Wednesday, January 09, 2019

Joe Felsenstein is a Clueless Asshole

Fat Joe Felsenstein should either get an education or just shut up. Now Joe Spews
So my view is that the negative arguments of ID advocates are possibly scientific, but the positive evidence for ID is not scientific.
Spoken like an asshole. I wonder if Felsenstein would like to compare positive cases- ID vs his lame-ass position? I doubt it as his doesn't have any positive evidence beyond genetic diseases and physical deformities.

The positive case for ID is summed up by Dr. Behe:
“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.”
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., "Darwinism, Design and Public Education", pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
There you have it- the positive case for ID and the potential falsification of the concept. And, unlike evolutionism, we do NOT say to prove a negative to falsify ID
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin 1859, pg. 175].

Proving a negative- how anti-science


Post a Comment

<< Home