Monday, September 18, 2006

ID Exam Question: design can be objectively detected, and that it’s not all that difficult

Apparently so. This is from GilDodgen over at UncommonDescent (where else!)

He says

My bottom-line thesis is that design can be objectively detected, and that it’s not all that difficult.

Well, Mr GilDodgen, would you care to illustrate how exactly it can be detected?
This illustration should be sufficient to allow a 3rd party to come to the same conclusion (objectively done, remember!) as yourself.
Which strikes me as odd, as nowhere does GilDodgen explain if he detected design in his own writings (I did not!) and how he would go about it anyway if he were to try.
So not only does he indicate that design is easy to detect he then fails to detect design in his own writings! So, if he fails at that point what hope is there for detecting design elsewhere also?

He then says

If a few alliterative M’s can spark a conclusive design inference, what about nature and living systems? I propose that the only reason for denying design in nature is that it would make some people philosophically uncomfortable. They should just feel uncomfortable and get used to it.

Oh, of course, that's why all those biologists reject ID - because their feel philosophically uncomfortable with it? Doh, it's so clear now! I mean, it's not as if 5 odd years of higher learning and then perhaps another 5 on top of that make much of a difference, it's because they are not open minded enougth to accept de truth. Thanks for pointing this out, however this would seem to fall under the "opinion" section, if you want these actual scientists to come round to your point of view you'd better try harder then this! This is real schoolkid stuff, right here!

And what crap about alliterative M's anyway, if this is conclusive proof of design then please show your working! If there was 1 less M would it have been almost conclusive proof? Not quite but 99% proof?

It would appear he's been drinking 99% proof to believe this drivel.

Part of the headline of the article is

When does design become obvious?

Now, excuse me but I thought that design detection was at the forefront if ID "science"? If you are still asking the most basic inane questions about the bedrock of your "science" then is it really apt to say "I propose that the only reason for denying design in nature is that it would make some people philosophically uncomfortable. They should just feel uncomfortable and get used to it."? Perhaps the reason they reject your "science" is that you cannot even answer the most basic questions about it, such as when does design become obvious?

And the full headline is:

ID exam question: When does design become obvious? And a challenge: Write a meaningful English sentence with the greatest number of alliterative M’s.

ID exam question indeed - this is the ultimate wet dream of these morons, but it will
never happen that there is such a thing as a ID exam paper. What, exactly, will be on it?

Here is a picture of the "face on mars"

a) determine if this is a natural object, or has been designed
b) put a value on the complex specified information in this object

When it's put like that, it seems almost reasonable but the thing to remember is that you'd never get a mark back on this exam because THERE IS NO ANSWER BOOK. Even the "experts" on ID cannot put a figure on any object's CSI ("it has alot of it" or "it's obviously designed" will not do) or if any given object is designed or not. And even if they could, no two of them would agree on the answer anyway (if they did, then that's a bit more like science eh?)

So before throwing out such shit as

“A microbe did not mysteriously mutate into Mozart and his music, and most people, thankfully, are smart enough to figure out that this is a silly idea.”
why dont you get back to answering the most basic questions about your "science" instead? What's so mysterious about mutation anyway? The fact that it seems mysterious to you because you are ignorant about mutation does not count, is this where you do your science? On a blog? Get out there into the real world and start to put some action behind your words, or are you just here to play to the crowds and get you 10 minutes of "fame". Mind you, if my audience was the dribbling morons that frequent the comment section at UD (with the odd exception) then i'd hardly consider that "fame" or even a sucess. Get a life GilDodgen, go out and do something worthwhile with it instead of defending religion dressed up as science.


1 comment:

biomimetic said...

I've got another one to add to the face on Mars.

http://www.craterchains.com/

He he.

Those ancient aliens must have broken up Shoemaker-Levy too!