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, January 18, 2019

Joshua Swamidass Continues to Misrepresent Dr. Behe

I nominate Joshua Swamidass as class clown. This guy is a joke.

What Dr. Behe claims- Dr. Behe schools Judge Jones:
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.
Dr. Behe is OK with evolution by means of intelligent design producing irreducibly complex structures an systems:
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.” Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier’s in the journal Cell: “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human” (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct? 
And in the same way a program is guided by its programmer the guidance could definitely be in the form of programming that allows for organisms to adapt and evolve. Evolution by means of intelligent design is OK with ID.

That is why origins are so important. With the intelligent design origin of life it is a given that they were intelligently designed with the ability to adapt and evolve.

Joshua can't seem to be able to grasp that- and it would be all "natural" when compared with the supernatural.


Post a Comment

<< Home