I do not believe you read the article. The author specifically refuted this objection. It is the conceit of the Darwinians to deny the legitimacy of every question that falls outside their myopic position.
We do not know how to define intelligence because the Darwinian choke-hold on scientific thought has not allowed us to develop a scientific model that even asks the question.
Darwinianism has become an antiquated dogma preventing science from moving into areas that it denies, such as intelligence theory.
"We do not know how to define intelligence because the Darwinian choke-hold on scientific thought has not allowed us to develop a scientific model that even asks the question. Darwinianism has become an antiquated dogma preventing science from moving into areas that it denies, such as intelligence theory."
Intelligence theory? Ok, what is the definition of intelligence in this field? I am pretty familiar with information theory by the way and though this would be the most plausible track to pursue this question it is ultimately a dead end. Why? Becuase it is mathematically provable that there exist no computable test that can differentiate between a random sequence and a highly complex sequence. This means that even if God is encoding "messages" into the seemingly random perturbations of nature that drive the various biological processes it is impossible to test for them, because arbitrarily complex sequences cannot be distinguised from random sequences.
"I do not believe you read the article. "
I think this will be the case repeatedly in this thread. Especially the point made in #4 about falsifying 'concepts'.
"It is the conceit of the Darwinians to deny the legitimacy of every question that falls outside their myopic position."
Have we not been told many times that origins fall outside the realm of science because there's no way to test for them, therefore science cannot address the issue? How can the evolutionists then so authoritatively state that there is no creation or ID and pontificate on a subject on which they admit self-imposed ignorance? If origins are outside their field of expertise, then they need to stop mocking and ridiculing those who disagree with them as deluded, believing in fairytales, when they don't know what they are talking about by their own admission. It is simply beyond the comprehension of many evolutionists that someone could look at the fossil record and come to a different conclusion than they did. They think that the evidence is SOOO overwhelmingly compelling that anyone with half a brain would be forced to come to the same conclusions that they so. This behavior, esp. the mocking, ridicule and name calling are unworthy of supposedly dignified, enlightened, open-minded scientists.