The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[Fester Chugabrew]

Then your claim is not a scientific explanation . . .

My claim is subsumed under, or inferred from, the scientific reality that organized matter performs specific functions. Whatever you assume as you undertake science also does not qualify as a "scientific explanation."

[taxesareforever]

You wanted response but as usual you deny anything that even has an inkling of suggesting something that is contrary to what you have imbedded in your mind.

Says Ray Comfort: "Mr. Maher, like all believers in the theory of evolution, simply has a blind faith in a theory-tale that can't be substantiated. It's just another opiate of the masses – a religion called 'Darwinism' that piously robes itself in what it thinks is 'science.' It is true science fiction."

[Dimensio]

You wanted response but as usual you deny anything that even has an inkling of suggesting something that is contrary to what you have imbedded in your mind.

I requested justification that the theory of evolution is a lie. The article to which you referred did not justify the claim. That Ray Comfort also makes the claim is not itself justification of the claim.

Says Ray Comfort: "Mr. Maher, like all believers in the theory of evolution, simply has a blind faith in a theory-tale that can't be substantiated. It's just another opiate of the masses – a religion called 'Darwinism' that piously robes itself in what it thinks is 'science.' It is true science fiction."

He is, of course, free to make such statements, however his making of such statements does not make those statements factual. You claimed that the theory of evolution is "a lie". You have, thus far, not supported this claim with any evidence.

[Dimensio]

My claim is subsumed under, or inferred from, the scientific reality that organized matter performs specific functions.

You have not yet justified making such an inference. Why does the "reality that organized matter perform specific functions" lend itself to the inference that said organized matter was intelligently designed?

Whatever you assume as you undertake science also does not qualify as a "scientific explanation."

This is correct. That is why the assumption of uniformatarianism is not itself an explanation, it is an assumption.

[ml1954]

"You can't handle the truth."

Whatever.

[Dimensio]

Hmm, 150 years or so since Darwin. 600,000,000 or so since the primordial soup. That's 1 sample out of 4000000.

You do not appear to understand how claims of historical sciences are evaluated.

That is what most people would reasonable infer is an insignificant sample size.

Fortunately, the evidence for evolution is not what you claim it to be.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You have not yet justified making such an inference.

By your standards? Of course not. I don't know why anyone would be interested in being justified by your standards in the first place.

Be that as it may, it is not merely organized matter performing specific functions that may constitute evidence of intelligent design, but the presence of intelligible data. Any and all such phenomena may be reasonably construed as evidence of intelligent design. You cannot empirically justify any inferences or suggestions to the contrary, but that does not make such inferences any less applicable in a public, academic, or scientific context.

[Dimensio]

By your standards? Of course not. I don't know why anyone would be interested in being justified by your standards in the first place.

No, I mean that you have not actually provided any reason to believe that "intelligent design" is likely explanation for "organized matter performing specific functions". You have asserted that intelligent design is a reasonable inference, but you have not once explained why intelligent design is a better inference than any other possible inference.

By your standards? Of course not. I don't know why anyone would be interested in being justified by your standards in the first place.

And why is this? Why could intelligent entities, such as humans, derive intelligible data from "organized matter performing specific functions" that was not a product of intelligent design?

Any and all such phenomena may be reasonably construed as evidence of intelligent design.

For what "reason" is this? Why would it be less reasonable to construe it as something other than evidence of intelligent design?

[taxesareforever]

You have, thus far, not supported this claim with any evidence.

Man is as man was. End of story.

[Dimensio]

Man is as man was. End of story.

Please support this claim with evidence. Saying "end of story" is not a substitute for evidence.

[taxesareforever]

Please support this claim with evidence. Saying "end of story" is not a substitute for evidence.

Any evidence submitted by an IDer will be debunked as a lie by evolutionists. So what's the point?

[Dimensio]

Any evidence submitted by an IDer will be debunked as a lie by evolutionists. So what's the point?

Have you considered submitting evidence that is not a lie?

[taxesareforever]

Have you considered submitting evidence that is not a lie?

I don't understand why you would even want to hold a dialogue with a liar.

[Dimensio]

I don't understand why you would even want to hold a dialogue with a liar.

There are times when it is useful to expose a known liar in public, so that those who might otherwise find their claims credibile will not be fooled. Also, a person who makes statements that are false is not necessarily a liar. It is possible that the person making such statements is unaware that their claims are false, and merely requires education.

I note that you have thus far not justified your original claim that evolution is a lie.

[taxesareforever]

I note that you have thus far not justified your original claim that evolution is a lie. And my justification is:

http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/gen1.html

[Dimensio]

The book of Genesis does not demonstrate that evolution is a "lie".

[taxesareforever]

The book of Genesis does not demonstrate that evolution is a "lie".

Certainly does. And if you deny it you are are the one living a lie.

[Dimensio]

Certainly does.

Please explain how the book of Genesis demonstrates that the theory of evolution is a lie.

And if you deny it you are are the one living a lie.

This is merely another assertion. This does not support your claim.

[taxesareforever]

This is merely another assertion.

Certainly beats the lie of evolution.

[Dimensio]

Certainly beats the lie of evolution.

You have not yet demonstrated that evolution is a lie, thus you cannot use this as a supporting argument. To do so is to assume your conclusion, which is a logical fallacy.