Replies

"Poor analogy. Genomes don't look like they're in perfect numerical order. They have broken genes, bits of ancient retroviruses, and close, tree-like relationships with other organisms. Everything about them screams evolution; nothing looks designed, unless the designer was drunk or insane."

I was not suggesting that an ordered deck of cards resembles a living organism. I was merely giving an example of a situation in which "intelligence" can be statistically inferred without actually showing how, when, or why the intelligence was introduced.

You evolutionists are true masters at aggressively missing the point. One the one hand, you make general philosophical assertions about ID theory ("isn't even a theory," "is unfalsifiable," etc.), then when you are challenged on your logical principles you revert to particular cases to obfuscate the underlying philosophical point.

I was merely giving an example of a situation in which "intelligence" can be statistically inferred without actually showing how, when, or why the intelligence was introduced.

The statistical calculation is based on the chance of it occuring naturally. That's easy enough to do with toy examples like card ordering where there are no natural processes in operation. But when it comes to life there are abundant natural processes working which complicates statistical calculations to such a point that they cannot be applied accurately.

I was not suggesting that an ordered deck of cards resembles a living organism. I was merely giving an example of a situation in which "intelligence" can be statistically inferred without actually showing how, when, or why the intelligence was introduced

You know humans exist, and that they have the ability to order the cards. You know the 'order' corresponds to the way humans order cards.

In the case of ID, we don't know the identity or nature of the designer; we don't know by what means such a designer could implement the design; and we don't know what form the design would take. Three strikes, you're out.

You evolutionists are true masters at aggressively missing the point. One the one hand, you make general philosophical assertions about ID theory ("isn't even a theory," "is unfalsifiable," etc.), then when you are challenged on your logical principles you revert to particular cases to obfuscate the underlying philosophical point.

You IDers argue by analogy, the weakest form of argument; and then when we point out the flaws in the analogy, retreat into vagueness.