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, October 30, 2019

Why Intelligent Design is Scientific (short version)

Despite what some morons may say, Intelligent Design is scientific. Intelligent Design is scientific for the simple reasons that it makes testable claims and can potentially be falsified. That is the hallmark of a scientific endeavor science works with testable ideas:
Only testable ideas are within the purview of science. For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true. 
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.

And guess what? That is more than evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes can muster

Those show the expectations and also what would falsify the concept.

The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box:
"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.”
If we observe that and don't have any idea how blind and mindless processes could have done it, we are safe to infer it was accomplished by means of Intelligent Design.

So there you have- Why Intelligent Design is scientific.

Saturday, October 19, 2019

A Nested Hierarchy of Designed Objects

Over on Peaceful Science they are asking for examples for design yielding a nested hierarchy. This is funny because they have never shown that they understand the concept. Universal common descent via gradual processes could never produce a nested hierarchy. There would be too many transitional forms blurring the lines of distinction. That and the fact traits can be lost which would make a descendent appear to be an ancestor.

I would love to see them present a nested hierarchy produced by blind and mindless processes. They never will. However, in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" Dr Michael Denton started one for designed/ manmade objects under the title of "Transport".

Under the "Transport" Kingdom you would have the Phyla- Land, Water, Air, and Hybrids.
Under the Land Phylum you would have the classes: Surface; underground; hybrids. Each of those would have Orders pertaining to engine type: diesel; steam; electric; petrol; hybrids. The families would be the different variations- trucks; cars; etc. And so on until you come to the specific cars.

Under the "Water" Phylum you would have the Classes: surface; submarine; hybrids

Under the "Air" Phylum you would have the Classes: fixed wing; helicopter; hybrids

So from there you just keep adding the criteria to fill out the rest of your nested hierarchy.

Friday, October 18, 2019

Alan Fox- Scientifically Illiterate asshole

Alan Fox is just an ignorant asshole. In a debate on science I would easily destroy him.

Back in 2007 Alan said that ID would be gone in 5 years. And yet 12 years later ID is going stronger than ever!

Alan is such an ignorant ass he thinks that Eric Holloway's easily refuted trope about ID is meaningful. Alan is such a loser that he tells people to scroll past all of the posts refuting Eric.

How big of a coward and liar do you have to be to say something like that?

Thankfully ID isn't going anywhere and Eric has abandoned the thread Alan links to.

Alan Fox is a clueless coward and belligerent liar.