The people who rail against ID are some of the most willfully ignorant losers, ever.
I haven’t seen much press on this lately, but back in the late 1980s, Creationists – a slice of Christians who hold that the creation of the universe, Earth, and all living things on Earth were created by God exactly as described in the Christian Bible and that the Earth is roughly 10,000 years old…tops – tried an end around to the 1987 Supreme Court decision (Edwards v. Aguillard) barring the teaching of Creation Science in public schools. The attempted end-around was called Intelligent Design (ID).
Total bullshit. ID traces back to the ancient Greeks and their telic thinking.
ID, boiled down, is essentially a dressed up version of William Paley’s The Watch and The Watchmaker argument for the existence of God, or rather, a slightly gussied up Teleological Argument for the Existence of God.
ID doesn't require God.
All Teleological Arguments rely on the same basic argument: certain features and functions of the world exhibit complexity that appears far too harmonious and intricate to have occurred by accident and thus must have been intelligently designed.
More bullshit. All teleological arguments rely on our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships in accordance with Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning.
First and foremost, technically there is no actual argument in the teleological approach to the existence of God as it’s simply a tautology and thus question begging.
ID doesn't require God. And the arguments are the same as used for archaeology and forensics. Are they are tautology too? Or are you just an ignorant ass?
If your philosophy’s premise assumes that all things have purpose and goals, using that philosophy to argue for a goal-oriented and purpose-creating designer is simply restating your premise’s assumptions.
Hump that strawman! ID doesn't say that all things have purposes and goals. What is wrong with you?
Intelligent Design tries to dress the argument up a bit by focusing on complexity vs purpose and goals, but the issue remains the same.
Wrong again. ID doesn't focus on mere complexity. Grow up.
In ID, the argument is changed slightly to certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection (or natural processes) and therefore must be the result of intentional and rational (intelligent) design requiring an intelligent designer.
Fuck you. You are a pathetic piece of shit. The explanatory filter proves the design inference is more than that.
A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy wherein someone argues that some condition has only two alternatives when in fact there are more.
Dumbass! Designed or not sweeps the field. There isn't anything else, dipshit.
The bottom line is that it’s a rather large (and unrealistic) stretch to assume the only way to get biological complexity is either evolution or God.
The bottom line is you are a willfully ignorant, strawman humper! Designed or not is all there is.
Lastly, as noted above, we don’t infer design from complexity so much as we infer design from indications of manufacturing.
ID doesn't infer design from mere complexity. And coded information processing systems, such as the one involved in genetic code, is an indication of manufacturing.
I’ve never found the ID arguments for the design of biological organisms all that compelling for a number of reasons.
You are ignorant of ID. And you don't have a scientific explanation for our existence.
All man-made objects – every single one – are either designed specifically to be replaced or have components that are designed specifically to be replaced. Why? Because tool users and manufacturers learn really quick that tools and/or certain parts of tools wear out. So as designers, we anticipate the need for maintenance.
Reproduction. Genetic engineering. Transplants. Yup, we have it covered.
Look, you ignorant ass. Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. You are an equivocating shit muncher.
Intelligent Design can be falsified by demonstrating that nature can produce life and coded information processing systems. DNA based life requires an existing suite of specific, specialized proteins and a functional coded information processing system. DNA has to code for the very proteins that keep it as a viable information carrier!
The only way you can argue against ID is to be ignorant of ID and science. Enter Robin and the losers of the skeptical zone