Intelligent design taught in our schools. Good or Bad

[phreakwars]

i think i just saw vortex pull out a $20

ROFLMFAO

Vortex already paid up !!
.
.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Alright, I guess you do have a point. For a layman, this is about all you can offer me in the way of an explanation of your point, and I can't fairly expect more directly from you. Excuse me, I didn't realize that everyone who engages in this debate is knowledgable enough to field their own arguments, but now I know.

As for the A.M.N.H. site at least, they don't present enough information to actually allow one to form their own informed opinion. They assume Evolution, present the evidence as such, and if you want to learn the fine details, you have to go elsewhere. But that's what I've grown to expect with pop science.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Hmm...

You do love making the half-assed attempt at underhanded insults but quite frankly, you're not very good at it.

You must hold multiple Ph.D.'s in fields to which you have so eagerly self-discredited, to so easily dismiss the leading academia of the land, including the "National Academia". You must be one smart ******* huh?

But...enough on this.

The topic is "Intelligent design taught in our schools. Good or bad." and I stand by my simple assertion that school is for academic based subjects, not religious views. That is what churches, temples, synagogues, shrines, or whatever physical building a particular religion wishes to use to further its viewpoints.

I for one will fight the good fight against allowing such nonsense into my son's schools.

In closing, I love it when people say "One Nation Under God..." to me, to which I very quickly reply, "Really? Who's God?".

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

And for $12 you can rub my **** and make a wish too.
.
.

Umm...

Oh beloved Genie of the Moderator Realm,

I got to "make the wish", Thank You!, but can we pass on the "rub my ****" part? LMFAO!

If not, can I use a "Pinch Hitter"? Oh Vortexxxxxxxxxxx.........

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Hmm...

You do love making the half-assed attempt at underhanded insults but quite frankly, you're not very good at it.

Actually, I was kinda serious. You basicly said you didn't know enough to debate, so you point me to the museum site. I knew the site didn't hold anything that I haven't seen before, and my visit confirmed that. You seem to take offense that I would challenge you to produce the information yourself. How should I apologize?

You must hold multiple Ph.D.'s in fields to which you have so eagerly self-discredited, to so easily dismiss the leading academia of the land, including the "National Academia". You must be one smart ******* huh?

No, actually, proving evolution wrong is quite simple with a proper application of information theory, statistics, and logic, though I do like to study biology in my free time. The rest is just finding where the holes in their evidence lie. It's a lot like how you take apart a religion. You don't have to know more about it, or be smarter than all the clerics, you just have to successfully dismantle a basic premise and everything else falls apart.

And not all acadamia study Evolution, most work on useful things, like physics and engineering.

But...enough on this.

Alrighty.

 

[ToriAllen]

No, actually, proving evolution wrong is quite simple with a proper application of information theory, statistics, and logic, though I do like to study biology in my free time. The rest is just finding where the holes in their evidence lie. It's a lot like how you take apart a religion. You don't have to know more about it, or be smarter than all the clerics, you just have to successfully dismantle a basic premise and everything else falls apart.

Actually, in order to understand evolution, a certain amount of logic and knowledge are required. I don't think a person should argue against something unless he/she understands the principles behind it. I would like to know where these so-say holes are that cannot be filled in by the logical mind.
Some educational reading:
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html
Both of these are in layman

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

But, if something is illogical, you will eventually find out if you have enough information. In addition, the logical mind can't make things logical that aren't. I sure you implied this without my stating it.

Cosmic evolution requires a lot more physics than biological evolution, it's not what I was referring to by evolution. But I'll give you a few things I know.

First of all, noone knows how stars could have really formed. This is contrary to what is always said in popular, publicly presented, watered down science.

The problem is, there is no way for gas on its own to just condense and start nuclear fusion. You might say gravity, but gravity is a fraction of the strength of the electromagnetic forces that make gas atoms repel one another.

By the way, this is something that seems to conflict with the whole concept of black holes. You might say "Hey, maybe the electrons combine with the protons to make electromagneticly neutral neutrons?". It's an idea, but something much, much stronger than gravity would have to beat down that electromagnetic force. And even then, if I remember correctly, lepton/hadron counts are conserved, so the neutron would simply come apart again anyway.

Anyway, they need some other force. They've proposed shock waves from exploding stars, but the issue is that you need stars before you can get stars.

Heavier elements are supposed to be created in stars, well, because it fits with the whole stellar evolution plot.

Dark matter was simply invented by humans to hold galaxies together. They don't know how they could be spinning so fast for so long and not have already come apart. Dark matter is basicly meant to be invisible to current instruments (and thus we have no direct evidence for), so they can have something out there that cannot currently be detected to hold theories together.

That's some basic stuff, without approaching the mounds of evidence contradicting each cosmic evolutionary theory.


Anyway, on to biological evolution.

Biological evolution does not work because there is no way gradual changes with selective advantages can be produced, because complex working systems of components are often highly ineffective or useless without every part. Take the battery out of your engine, you'll need to jump it. Take out the distributor, it's useless.

Evolutionists try to jump this with co-option. Co-option is basicly where the parts for a whole system are developed in other systems and then thrown together to make a new one. Empiricly speaking, this doesn't work either. It's not impossible, but the chances of these things happening have denominators with thousands of zeroes. The proofs can be a bit more rigorous, though.

Simple issues that I can describe are this: ALL of the necessary parts MUST show up in other parts of the creature. If any part is not to be found in any other organ, you're subject to the first part of the argument.

Second: Where did the parts to make up the other systems come from, if they were before any other systems and thus not eligible for the co-option process?

Third: What's the chance of this happening within a completely random process anyway? A fraction so small that any reasonable scientist would say it's zero for all intents and purposes. There is a chance you could sink a tenth of an inch into the floor at any given moment.

There is a chance your coffee mug's thermal energy could all go in a proper direction to produce mechanical energy and lift right the counter top; all on it's own. But these are events of very small probability, they may never happen in the lifetime of the universe. So, empiricly speaking, they are impossible.

Anyway, you can blame Dr. William Dembski and Dr. Michael Behe for those arguments, though their versions are going to be harder to read

Would you like me to go into why there is no proof for any working process of evolution next and how Evolutionists hide a damning contradictory fact?

 

[ToriAllen]

Would you like me to go into why there is no proof for any working process of evolution next and how Evolutionists hide a damning contradictory fact?

Sure, why not.

Before you do, understand that I believe in both intelligent design and evolution, and that it is possible to do so. I believe God is intelligent enough to design his creatures with the ability to adapt.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Anyway, you can blame Dr. William Dembski and Dr. Michael Behe for those arguments, though their versions are going to be harder to read

Heh Heh Heh... SO you are quoting those guys. Well of them I am aware and familiar.

FYI to the general reader here...

"A mathematician and a philosopher, William A. Dembski is associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University and a senior fellow with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. He is also the executive director of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design "

No zoology, no biology, no cellular biology, no geology, no chemistry, none nada zip. He's a mathematician and a mediocre one at that from Baylor University no less. (Now there's an impartial institution of higher learning... Cough ) Oh, and he's not even a tenured professor but he's trying.

On the other hand, Michael Ruse is a tenured professor in philosophy at Florida State. That's right, philosophy. No science, none, nada, zip; just smoke and mirrors.

Troll you disappoint me. Such pathetically weak philosophical dribble I would think it would be beneath you to cite such muck! Guess not.

But then again, let's look at what just one of many real scientists thinks of your good Doctors recent book "No Free Lunch".

FYI. Wesley R. Elsberry is a biologist with an eclectic educational and work background. Wesley is a graduate of the University of Florida where he earned a B.S. in zoology, the University of Texas at Arlington where he earned an M.S.C.S. (computer science), and earned Ph.D. in Wildlife and Fisheries at Texas A&M University.

"No Free Lunch" brings us up to date with Dembski's thoughts on evolution and intelligent design. For those who are proponents of intelligent design antievolution, this book will be a must-read, as Dembski is the foremost philosopher for the ID movement. The first two chapters give a summary of Dembski's framework for making "design inferences". Those who have read Dembski's monograph, "The Design Inference", will see much that is familiar -- and a few things that have changed a bit. This is where we learn about "specified complexity" and what makes a "specification" a good thing in inferring design. The third chapter makes an argument that specified complexity and information theory are closely related, ending up with Dembski's assertion of a fourth law of thermodynamics, a conservation law for "complex specified information" (CSI). Chapter four moves on to Dembski's take on evolutionary algorithms, those computational analogues of biological natural selection. This is where Dembski deploys Wolpert and MacReady's "No Free Lunch" results to argue that evolutionary algorithms are incapable of producing the CSI we might identify in biological systems. Chapter five takes us to a discussion of Michael Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" (IC), asserting relationships between specified complexity and IC, and offering a new, improved version of IC to boot. Chapter six gives us Dembski's view of how his notion of specified complexity in particular and intelligent design in general can be usefully deployed as a scientific research program.

Throughout the book, Dembski takes up arguments that critics have made. As one of those critics, I can offer my opinion that Dembski fails to track those critical arguments in certain crucial respects.

For instance, Dembski brushes off a criticism concerning the reliability of his "explanatory filter" by noting that the objection is the problem of induction, but fails to either solve the problem of induction or retract the claim of reliability. That's philosophical humor, by the way. Dembski is not going to solve the problem of induction. That means that he should have retracted his claim of reliability. Just to be clear, let's see what Dembski means by saying that his Explanatory Filter/Design Inference/Specified Complexity criterion is reliable.

I want, then, to argue that specified complexity is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I want to argue that the complexity-specification criterion successfully avoids false positives -- in other words, whenever it attributes design, it does so correctly.
-- WA Dembski, "No Free Lunch", p.24

The above is not a typical statement for "scientific inquiry". It describes the operation of an oracle, not an inference.

Some may object that "success" need not refer to the 100% reliability that Dembski's words above seem plainly to invoke. But we have further testimony from Dembski that that is exactly what is meant.

[...] Biologists worry about attributing something to design (here identified with creation) only to have it overturned later; this widespread and legitimate concern has prevented them from using intelligent design as a valid scientific explanation.

Though perhaps justified in the past, this worry is no longer tenable. There now exists a rigorous criterion complexity-specification for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pre-theoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The great breakthrough in philosophy of science and probability theory of recent years has been to isolate and make precise this criterion. Michael Behe's criterion of irreducible complexity for establishing the design of biochemical systems is a special case of the complexity-specification criterion for detecting design (cf. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box).

What does this criterion look like? Although a detailed explanation and justification is fairly technical (for a full account see my book The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press), the basic idea is straightforward and easily illustrated. [...]

-- W.A. Dembski, "Science and design", First Things, Oct. 1998, http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html, last accessed 2002/01/20.

Further, Dembski has never bothered to propose an effective empirical test methodology for his Explanatory Filter. Instead, it has been left to critics like myself to propose empirical methods of determining whether Dembski's claims of reliability have any grounding in fact.

Dembski has, so far, not analyzed potential counterexamples. I proposed at Haverford College last June that Dembski "do the calculation" for the Krebs citric acid cycle and the impedance-matching apparatus of the mammalian middle ear. Dembski has not done so.

In other places, Dembski fails to take up the arguments of critics, as in Dembski's mischaracterization of a program written by Richard Dawkins. Two out of three of the steps that Dembski says characterize the program are, in fact, Dembski's own invention, appearing nowhere in Dawkins's work. The sad thing is that criticism of precisely this point was made by me in email to Dembski back in October of 2000. It would have been easy for Dembski to fix, but it did not happen.

The most disappointing aspect of "No Free Lunch", though, has to do with section 5.10, "Doing The Calculation". Dembski had promised, under critical questioning, to publish an example of the application of his framework for inferring design from "The Design Inference" as it would be applied to a non-trivial example of a biological system. Section 5.10 is apparently what Dembski intended to serve as payment on that promissory note. However, it fails to deliver on several points. Dembski does not establish that the example, that of a bacterial flagellum, has a specification according to the usage in "The Design Inference". Dembski also fails to enumerate and then eliminate multiple relevant chance hypotheses, as indicated in "The Design Inference". Dembski especially does not evaluate the hypothesis that the bacterial flagellum developed through evolutionary change; a curious omission given the context. The single "chance" hypothesis that Dembski does bother to consider is a marginal refinement on the old antievolution standby, "random assembly". At least, the technical jargon looks denser around Dembski's argument than I've seen around "tornado in a junkyard" presentations. But all in all, section 5.10 does little to help those who wanted to see how a design inference could be rigorously applied to biological examples.

This book brings together in one place many of Dembski's ideas. The arguments range from very technical mathematical and logical formulations to pop culture examples to illustrate points. In my opinion, the book suffers from some very deep flaws -- it seems to me that Dembski misuses the NFL results to argue against the capacity of evolutionary algorithms to solve problems. Many more minor problems are apparent to me in even my brief acquaintance with the book. Still, if one wished to buy one book of Dembski's rather than the four that now grace my bookshelf, "No Free Lunch" would be the one to get.


Come on Troll, you can do better than this can't you?

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Hey Troll!

Dr. Pigliucci doesn't agree with your two Philosophy guys either!

http://chem.tufts.edu/ais/DesignYesIntelligentNo.html

Massimo Pigliucci, Ph.D. Genetics, Ph.D. Botany, Ph.D. Philosophy

(Damn, I think he's a real smart guy don't you Troll? 3 Ph.D.'s)

Dr. Pigliucci is an Associate Professor at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, where he teaches ecology and evolutionary biology. His research is on the evolution of genotype-environment interactions, i.e. on questions of nature vs. nurture.

He received his Doctorate in Genetics at the University of Ferrara in Italy and his PhD in Botany from the University of Connecticut. He is now finishing a PhD in Philosophy at the University of Tennessee. He has published 72 technical papers and two books on evolutionary biology (Phenotypic Evolution, for Sinauer, with Carl Schlichting; and Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature vs. Nurture, for Johns Hopkins University Press).

He has recently completed an edited book entitled The Evolution of Complex Phenotypes soon to be published by Oxford University Press (with Katherine Preston).

Dr. Pigliucci has been awarded several times the Oak Ridge National Labs award for excellence in research and has won the prestigious Dobzhansky Prize from the Society for the Study of Evolution, of which he is now Vice President.

As a skeptic, he has published in national magazines such as Free Inquiry (for which he writes a regular op-ed column), Skeptic, Skeptical Inquirer (for which he writes a regular column on the scientific method), Philosophy Now, and The Philosopher

 

[Silmaril39]

Intelligent design should be taught in schools, but in a philosphy class (or a religion class) NOT in a science class. Evolution is a testable, scientifically based theory, while Intelligent design has no actual evidence going for it. Philosphy answers the why of life and that is why intelligent design belongs, not in the how of science.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Well, I'm gonna get some sleep before I formulate my rebuttal, but first I must clear up one error:

On the other hand, Michael Ruse is a tenured professor in philosophy at Florida State. That's right, philosophy. No science, none, nada, zip; just smoke and mirrors.

That's Michael BEHE. BEHE, B-E-H-E, Phd in BIOCHEMISTRY.

I think you failed the reading comprehension. I'll give you an E for effort, though.

 

[Gray~Gal]

Intelligent design should be taught in schools, but in a philosphy class (or a religion class) NOT in a science class. Evolution is a testable, scientifically based theory, while Intelligent design has no actual evidence going for it. Philosphy answers the why of life and that is why intelligent design belongs, not in the how of science.

I agree. We need more in depth classes for people that arent all wrapped into one of a few.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Well, I'm gonna get some sleep before I formulate my rebuttal, but first I must clear up one error:



That's Michael BEHE. BEHE, B-E-H-E, Phd in BIOCHEMISTRY.

I think you failed the reading comprehension. I'll give you an E for effort, though.

A million pardons Oh Great One. After building a fence all day I was a very tired, and thought you were referring to Dr. Dembski's most recent writing partner for their bathroom literature of Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA

I slipped a gear there for a split second... Whoops! My sincere apologies.

But...

Your other notable, Dr. Michael B - E - H - E is also nothing more than a laughing joke.

I've read some of his stuff too, specifically Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution and quite frankly, it is a cheap plagiarized copy of the works and writings of William Paley in his Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature , specifically the "Watchmaker" argument.

Tsk Tsk Tsk... This line of reasoning has been debunked over and over again by far greater minds than ours.

Please, tell me you have something more than this. I hope that you have at least one noteworthy reference to someone who has original, fact based, and scientific work in support of your position instead of philosophical ramblings and plagiarism.

But then again, it is rather difficult to use fact based science to verify the existence of the Easter Bunny, or any other such postulate such as yours, namely - proving the existence of God by utilizing the purely fantasy argument of intelligent design.


Liner Note: I really like Behe's Empty Box

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

Specifically this one by Bob Park. Very amusing.

http://www.bobpark.org/

Friday, August 5, 2005

science n. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. (Oxford English Dictionary, eleventh edition)

1. THE PRESIDENT: MAYBE THE WHITE HOUSE COULD USE A DICTIONARY.
Conservative Christian supporters are gloating. On Tuesday, in an interview with Texas reporters, the President of the United States came down on the side of equal time for intelligent design. Referring back to his time as Governor of Texas, Mr. Bush said, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Which two sides are those Mr. President? I don't think we can teach the Genesis story in science class, even after you pack the Court. Surely you're not talking about the "intelligent design" thing? Can someone tell us who or what is doing the designing? I think that will tell us whether it's science or religion.

2. THE FOUNDER: DISCOVERY INSTITUTE DOESN'T NEED A DICTIONARY.
The Washington Post on Saturday had a little-noticed letter from Bruce Chapman, founder and President of the Discovery Institute. Director of the White House Office of Planning and Evaluation under Ronald Reagan, Chapman learned from the master. Facts are not important, what matters is conviction. "The only religious believers in all this," he writes, "are the Darwinists, who are out to punish scholars who see the weakness of Darwin's theory." And who are these scholars? This brings up another alarming trend, conservative think tanks manned by "scholars" who do no research, but spew out books laden with conviction. Chapman perfected this by recruiting bright young believers to the cause and assigning them the task of becoming biology PhDs.

3. THE SCIENCE ADVISOR: THE PRESIDENT HAS A SCIENCE ADVISOR?
Asked by the New York Times to comment, John Marburger responded, "Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology .... intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Good response. It would be nice if the President's science advisor advised the President.

4. THE VATICAN ASTRONOMER: CATHOLIC CHURCH SPLITS OVER EVOLUTION.
A cardinal close to the pope has ties to the Discovery Institute (WN 15 Jul 05), but in today's issue of The Tablet, Britain's Catholic Weekly, Father George Coyne, an American Jesuit priest and a distinguished astronomer, directly attacked Cardinal Schoenborn's position on evolution.

5. THE PRINCE: WEALTHY BRITISH FARMER LOOKS TO THE MOON FOR HELP.
Tormented by fears of nanorobots turning the planet into "grey goo," and poisoning by genetically modified foods, Prince Charles fights science by embracing homeopathy, coffee enemas, organic farming, and now "biodynamics," which involves planting according to cycles of the moon and signs of the Zodiac. In a monarchy you are stuck with what you get, while in a democracy we can pick the best qualified among us to lead. But it's only a theory.

So, Troll... Where do we go from here? Perhaps you should have a nice big slice of Crow Pie you overtly arrogant wind bag! LMAOROTF! I'm still waiting for your brilliant and ever so simple disproving of Evolution.

Remember these?

"Actually, I was kinda serious. You basically said you didn't know enough to debate, so you point me to the museum site. I knew the site didn't hold anything that I haven't seen before, and my visit confirmed that. You seem to take offense that I would challenge you to produce the information yourself. How should I apologize?" (No need to apologize...I enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself! NEWS FLASH: Visiting a Natural History Museum web site and actually going to a Natural History Museum are 2 different things altogether. I suggest you try the latter.)

"No, actually, proving evolution wrong is quite simple with a proper application of information theory, statistics, and logic, though I do like to study biology in my free time." (Really? Oh enlighten us Great One! But... you're going to need better people who plagiarize than the morons you've quoted so far! )

Might I make a suggestion. Stick to the topic. Show me your rational argument as to why the teaching of intelligent design in our public school system is a good thing. That should be very easy for a brainiac like you!

For me the argument is quite simple. The sole purpose of intelligent design teaching is not to provide any fact based scientific explanation whatsoever, but rather to underhandedly and covertly subject the pupil to religious teachings in disguise. Afterall, the real intent of intelligent design is to offer "proof" that God must exist BECAUSE of intelligent design. Hogwash!

However, evolution and its related studies do not seek to disprove any celestial or supernatural being but rather seek to track backwards, the origin of life, matter, and civilization. Hmm...

To quote the signature of the right good and honorable Msixty...

"Your stupidity is my weapon."

I eagerly await your diatribe Sir...

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Not to be a vicious ***** but I really really really like this one... You might like it as well but then again, it may give you an upset stomach! The whole article is worth the brief read time. I've enclosed the hyperlink an a brief quote. Enjoy!

In this American Scientist magazine book review, Yale biologist Robert Dorit identifies six fallacies that plague Behe's book.

http://www.americanscientist.org/te...22794;jsessionid=aaabTp1Giu8RZA?fulltext=true

A Review of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe

By: Robert Dorit, - Associate Professor Department of Biological Sciences - Smith College & Yale University - Ph.D. Biology, Harvard University

This review originally appeared in the September-October 1997 issue of American Scientist.

...I've often wondered why the argument from design so appeals to engineers and chemists. I suspect that the problem derives from the day-to-day experience of these professions. Engineers and chemists know that they do not get a desired outcome

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Well, I'm gonna get some sleep before I formulate my rebuttal...

Well, it's 10:57pm EST and no formulated rebuttal as of yet.

Hey Troll, you still there? Come on, I thought you wanted to play?

LMAOROTF!

Next thing you know, you'll be telling the Mods how mean old CES beat up on you. Awwwwww, toooooo ****ingggggg badddddddddd...

LMAO!

 

[phreakwars]

I found a pic of C.E.S. celebrating his victory with the can of whoop ass he opened up on you.


.
.
.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Oh damn, I'm so sorry for having to do things in real life. After all, I have nothing better to do than post on this board

Letsee.... So you're idea of arguing my point is to take book reviews that put down the works of the people I draw from, rather than actually take on the argument I present? Have you offered any reasoning against what I've actually said? Nope.

Please, tell me you have something more than this. I hope that you have at least one noteworthy reference to someone who has original, fact based, and scientific work in support of your position instead of philosophical ramblings and plagiarism.

Plagiarism huh? Yeah, I plagiarized the sources I gave credit to. Should I look up the definition of this word for you, dipshit?

What bravado for someone who has yet to even approach the argument I presented. What I layed down is a synthesis of ideas inspired by these two. Even if the ones you quoted (Seeing as you aren't doing **** but parroting) actually chopped up the arguments of those I give credit to, you have still have failed to present anything against my case. Of course you're going to come up with some faux disqualifier, maybe mixed in with some more quote mining, because true rational argument is obviously beyond you.

Well, if I was to copy a play from your book, I'd quote a whole bunch of other people to make myself look smart, then post a whole lot of articles that attack something vaguely related to your argument.

But since you actually cannot present an argument of your own, and I don't find bashing strawmen as fun as you do, I'm actually going to post the relevant responses of these two to the critics you mentioned.

First, Dembski's response to Pigliucci on the article you posted:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/02.02.pigliucci_response.htm

And now Behe's response:
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe08.asp

I've read some of his stuff too, specifically Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution and quite frankly, it is a cheap plagiarized copy of the works and writings of William Paley in his Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature , specifically the "Watchmaker" argument.

Tsk Tsk Tsk... This line of reasoning has been debunked over and over again by far greater minds than ours.

Nice unsupported assertion there. Greater minds than yours, maybe. I personally have yet to see a proper debunking of Paley's argument. And, somehow, I don't think I ever will. Feel free to quote anything you think does, though. I'll educate you on why it doesn't, if education is even possible with your willfully ignorant attitude.

But then again, it is rather difficult to use fact based science to verify the existence of the Easter Bunny, or any other such postulate such as yours, namely - proving the existence of God by utilizing the purely fantasy argument of intelligent design.

Hot air, no substance other than the citations. Blah blah blah science blah blah blah Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, gnomes blah blah blah God, fantasy. Try actually making a point against me, and THEN insult me.

And now, unlike you, I'm actually going to put down one of your idols' arguments without cutting whole cloth from other sources. Hell, I'm going freestyle on this one.

Pigliucci? Whoopdee do. First he starts off with philosophical rambling, talking about how Aristotle's four causes are viable in biology, and how evolution can supposedly fit the final two causes and thus become a form of "design".

"The efficient cause is natural selection promoting some genetic variants of the tiger

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

"A tiger develops into a tiger because it is in its nature to do so, and this nature is due to some physical essence given to it by its father (we would call it DNA) which starts the process out. Aristotle makes clear this rejection of god as a final cause (Cohen 2000) when he says that causes are not external to the organism (such as a designer would be) but internal to it (as modern developmental biology clearly shows)."

Yeah, and where did chemical data storage and compression with translation mechanisms and error correction that whip the **** out of our intelligent designed electronic ones come from? Oh yeah, random solar emissions into clay. Pfft.

"Behe

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

"In response to some of his critics, Dembski (2000) claimed that intelligent design does not mean optimal design. The criticism of suboptimal design has often been advanced by evolutionists who ask why God would do such a sloppy job with creation that even a mere human engineer can easily determine where the flaws are."

First of all, this is an argument from theism. Second, who the **** cares how good a job the designer did if evolution is impossible anyway?

"For example, why is it that human beings have hemorrhoids, varicose veins, backaches, and foot aches?"

This is just dumb. Why do cars get flat tires? Why do pipes burst? This is the result of damage. Humans aren't BORN with hemorrhoids, unless they have some congenital defect introduced through damage, genetic or otherwise.

Anyway, I'm tired of chopping up this idiot and my opposition thinks they can declare time limits to win, so if anyone wants me to smash Piggie's flawed conclusion, just ask.

So how do you like that CES? I just wiped my feet on your Triple Phd'ed idol's argument. You really come off as such a science fanboy, mentioning Phd's with such worshipfulness. it really makes me think you can't even think for yourself in these matters. Well, I have news for you: Some people can actually investigate facts, and figure out real answers with their head actually outside of Phd'ed ass.

That even with three Phds this guy's defense of evolution crumbles with a proper application of logic and fact should show us something. I'd like to say that it's that evolution has no good defense, but you can take it however you like

Looking back into history, I'm gonna guess that you're going to quote mine and completely avoid the body of my argument yet again, so I guess I'll just wait for it.