Is Intelligent Design Science?
If not, Neither is Darwinism
What the 7734 is “Darwinism”? If you are referring to Evolution Through the Process of Natural Selection, then call it what is. You can even use just evolution. However, there is no such thing as “Darwinism”. Then again, you are just using a disparaging term as I use Religitard. Mine is a FACT. Yours is just made up.
— By Frank Turek
Ahh... yes. The intelligent design fantasy (IDF). Why are Religitards the only dumb arses that thinks this fantasy story is actually real? Are you Religitards actually that stupid? Or, do you just act that way?
First, IDF is not science.
Second, IDF is not a theory.
Third, IDF is not even a hypothesis.
Forth, IDF is a preposterous CLAIM.
Fifth, IDF is the perfect example of arse-backwards methodology.
Finally, IDF has been so thoroughly debunked, hanging onto that idea only makes you Religitards look even stupider.
This Intelligent Design Fantasy (IDF hereafter) is the perfect example of how you Religitards assume your conclusion correct, then look for truth to pervert and twist into a ludicrous and idiotic lie. One thing all persons MUST remember is that not one Religitard is capable of speaking truthfully. EVER.
Science has proven this. Even if a Religitard were to speak truthfulness, they are still processing it in their brain as if it were a LIE. Now THINK about that. Science has proven with a certain type of brain scan, that when a Religitard actually says something that is true, their brain still processes that thought as if it were a LIE. Also see this treatise: The Other Two Brains (new tab).
T…H…I…N…K…
This article is adapted from Chapter 6 of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist:
The Darwinists’ claim that Intelligent Design is not science cannot be determined from science itself. Science requires philosophical assumptions, and Darwinists philosophically rule out intelligent causes before they look at the evidence. As we have seen, science is a search for causes, and there are only two types of causes: intelligent and nonintelligent (natural). But, of course, if your definition of science rules out intelligent causes beforehand, then you’ll never consider Intelligent Design science.
First and Foremost, you MUST define this bullshit you have labeled “darwninist”. That word does NOT exist. It is some brain diarrhea you retarded Religitards cooked up from somewhere. You MUST define what you dumb-arse retards mean by “darwinist”. I have no fucking clue what you retards “mean” by using that term. THUS, WHAT THE 7734 IS A “darwinist”?
Actually doofus, it is YOU Religitards whom claim IDF is science. I have never claimed IDF is not science. I have empirically and summarily STATED that IDF is not science. Why? Because it ain’t science. IDF has never been science ever since that particularly retarded dumb arse ever wrote that TANSTAAFL-based book. Who was that particularly stupid arsehole? It is that you nasty, dumb-arsed Religitard pit bulls won’t let go. You grasp onto something and cannot, will not let it go. You do realize that Dr. Kenneth Miller, a “Civlized Believer” as opposed to Religitard, has thoroughly debunked the IDF argument. Yet you stupid retards just cannot let it go. See if you can keep up. Besides, the only ones such Brain Diarrhea works on are those whom are already beLIEvers. It ain’t working on a generation of humans that carry the greatest fact checking tool ever invented. Thank you Tim Berners-Lee.
Here is a particularly great video at Rationality Rules: Why the End of Christianity is Sooner Than You Think. The WWW is the great religion killer.
Here is how anything, everything, something, nothing MUST be considered to actually be a Hypothesis. Before it can be shown to be part of a theory, or a whole new theory. Anything, everything, something, nothing must first pass the Hypothesis Test to be graduated from just an Idea to a Hypothesis.
- Is IT testable?
- Is IT falsifiable?
And do NOT play stupid and ask what “IT” is.
Should EITHER one be answered “No”, then your idea is just a preposterous fantasy. And how does the IDF fair?
- Is IT testable? No. (Possibly.)
- Is IT falsifiable? No.
Ultimate Question for Religitards: Why is it NOT you whom are performing the experiments to prove your claims true? Why do you REQUIRE others to perform those experiments to disprove your claim? ONUS PROBUNDI. He whom makes an assertion bears burden of proof, NOT he whom doubts.
Now, in particular attention to the highlighted statement above: “If your definition of science rules out intelligent causes beforehand, then you’ll never consider Intelligent Design science.” Science itself rules out ANY and ALL intelligent causes because scientists experiment to answer a question, and never experiment to prove a conclusion. Saying anything has “intelligent causes” before investigating “all possible causes” is the Religitard’s method of mental premature ejaculation. The Scientific Method first asks a question. Then hypothesizes possible explanations in order to design the experiments. When a Hypothesis has been formally proposed AND passes the Hypothesis Test, then the experiments come out to play.
I KNOW one FACT for absolute certainty: Religion hypothesizes nothing. They prevaricate beLIEvable LIES as if truth. Yet, not one Religitard can even provide ONE piece of OHEFE to prove their claims true. Absolutely no OHEFE. Besides, if you look at the definition of the IDF, one can see that it acutally debunks itself.
“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”
This is just the LITERAL sophisticated transliteration of:
“The beLIEf of creationism holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent deity, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”
Reread as many times as necessary utilizing Critical Thinking. You can easily see how IDF actually debunks itself. For those who cannot see THIS, then you are completely mad and lost. With mad meaning “affected by insanity”, and lost meaning “hopelessly irredeemable”.
Another way to word the definition of the IDF is, “My IDF concludes intelligent design is truth, regardless of contradicting OHEFE.” Now THAT is the literal definitive truth of IDF. And, one need not think critically to see this.
And, Please define what the 7734 a Darwinist is. None of you dumb-arse Religitards have defined your make-beLIEve term “darwinist”. Dumb Arses.
The irony for the Darwinists is this: if Intelligent Design is not science, then neither is Darwinism. Why? Because both Darwinists and Intelligent Design scientists are trying to discover what happened in the past. Origin questions are forensic questions, and thus require the use of the forensic science principles we already have discussed. In fact, for Darwinists to rule out Intelligent Design from the realm of science, in addition to ruling out themselves, they would also have to rule out archaeology, cryptology, criminal and accident forensic investigations, and the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). These are all legitimate forensic sciences that look into the past for intelligent causes. Something must be wrong with the Darwinists’ definition of science.
Again, Please define what you mean by “darwinist”.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, there is only one science: investigative. There are no other forms of science. There is ONLY one thing science does, with a few synonyms: Science Investigates. Science Inquires. Science Questions. Thus, science is ONLY investigative. And, by this very nature, science also happens to be entirely Empirical. Without OHEFE, what is any statement, claim, assertion, other than a LIE? Just one of My Two Toughest Questions For Religitards. The other one: What is an otherwise intelligent person whom beLIEves faerie tales, myths, folk tales, and lies are truth, other than a mental retard? Rule: Use nothing religious to answer both questions. When one is investigating, do you not rely on empirical evidence? Empirical facts? Thus, OHEFE? ∴, since science investigates, it requires OHEFE.
Now, someone like you is going to be so god-damned retarded and take “∴, since science investigates, it requires OHEFE.” and twist and pervert it into some sick, depraved misrepresentation that only a Religitard can fantasize. Why? Because Religitards are the sickest, most perverted, and psychologically twisted anti-humanists to ever exist. Remember, it is you Religitards whom purposefully cause your own brain damage. Long enough, such as Mr. Turek, and they can no longer think. Let alone critically.
Frontotemporal Lobar Degenerative Disorder.
AND, Religitards do it to themselves on purpose.
That Religitard idea of your IDF is NOT trying to investigate anything. Instead, you prevaricating deceivers take the discoveries of science, pervert and twist it into some fucked-up monster, utilizing beguiling semantics and prestidigitative dialect, then you use the psychological terrorism known as Empathic Predation. Prove me wrong.
One particular example is that completely retarded doofus known as Michael Behe. He was so thoroughly debunked in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Have you ever read the transcripts? I even wrote Michael Behe a lengthy treatise on the ICIDIC. Star Trek fans will recognize this. I formulated this after having an epiphany on infinity. And that epiphany always begs this question from “I” of the Three of Me. How can one spend an infinity understanding infinity within a finite epiphany? Think Koch Snowflake. A geometric figure that defines a finite area within an infinite perimeter. Or, the Serpenski Sponge, a geometric polyhedron that defines a finite space within a infinite boundary. ICIDIC means:
- Infinite Complexity from
- Infinite Diversity through
- Infinite Combinations
In a debate 50 years ago, I said this: “Any person whom cannot understand infinity and all its regresses and progresses is completely mad and lost.” Again, with mad meaning affected with insanity, and lost meaning hopelessly irredeemable. I was only 15y old and debated against the local Pulpit Prevaricator. Debate Topic: “Was Life Created, or Did It Evolve?” Within hostile territory (the church prison camp) I swung the audience from 77% created, to 58% evolve. IOW, my argument was way more plausible even to those “unintellectual bumpkins” as Religitards are fond of calling us who work a farm, ranch, or both.
Here is another FACT about Religitards. They shall NEVER agree to debate on hostile territory. And if they do agree to a university, then it will be held on the “liberal arts” side of the campus. Their stipulation is for an “at least neutral” audience. They shall NEVER try to debate a scientist at any place they would consider “scientific”. Why? Because deep down ALL Religitards are bullies, thugs, cowards. They will purposefully force the venue onto friendly territory, like the greatest coward of all, William Lane Craig. Religitards actually KNOW their beLIEfs are nothing more than lies made beLIEvable. They have absolutely no OHEFE; thus, they MUST create beLIEvable faerie tales and use Empathic Predation to force you to use your own emotions against your intellect. Reiteration:
Religitards use beguiling semantics and prestidigitative dialect, and Empathic Predation, to make their listeners use their emotions against their intellect.
Now, who are stupid ones? Allowing Religitards to disrespect and insult your intellect? T…H…I…N…K…
“These are all legitimate forensic sciences that look into the past for intelligent causes. Something must be wrong with the science’s definition of science.”
Woowww… Mr. Turek, you should not show off how stupid you are. There is no such thing as forensic sciences, excepting the Science of Forensics, there is only science. Science NEVER looks for “intelligent causes” when it investigates; excepting within Law, and why in science they are Principles. Science only looks for possible causes, builds machines to experiment, and either falsify or verify. As simply put as I can define the Scientific Method. You say you were a Naval Aviator. I beg to differ. You show signs of not having enough intelligence for critical thought. And the below table shows off more stupidity.
Table 6.2 shows the difference between empirical science and forensic science:
| Empirical (Operation) Science | Forensic (Origin) Science |
|---|---|
| Studies present | Studies past |
| Studies regularities | Studies singularities |
| Studies repeatable | Studies unrepeatable |
| Re-creation possible | Re-creation impossible |
| Studies how things work | Studies how things began |
| Tested by repeatable experiment | Tested by uniformity |
| Asks how something operates | Asks what its origin is |
| Examples: | |
| How does water fall? | What’s the origin of a hydroelectric plant? |
| How does rock erode? | What’s the origin of Mount Rushmore? |
| How does an engine work? | What’s the origin of an engine? |
| How does ink adhere to paper? | What’s the origin of this book? |
| How does life function? | What’s the origin of life? |
| How does the universe operate? | What’s the origin of the universe? |
My Turn
O! My! Someone has absolutely NO understanding of anything science. Those examples you list in above table are the absolute worstest I have ever seen. More like what a Religitard would come up with.
ALL of your Examples above are just pure poppycock. Horse hoowhee. Bullshit. Brain Diarrhea. I mean, how can you analogize “How does water fall” with “What’s the origin of a hydroelectric plant”? Can you not see how stupid this makes you seem? Or are you actually that stupid. And the other examples are also stupid Brain Diarrhea.
And another problem, since I proved science investigates, your supposed empirical science also investigates what you call forensic science. AND vice versa. T…H…I…N…K… Sounds like you are trying to pawn off another version of AiG’s observational versus historical science.
crossexamined.org reads exactly like carm.org and answersingenesis.org. Just different verbiage. You somehow made enough money to bribe and buy those to confirm YOUR beLIEfs. Why are you not doing ANY serious scientific inquiry into discovering any OHEFE? Mental Retard. You just spew Brain Diarrhea by using even more Brain Diarrhea to make your claims appear to be true. But only true in an emotional sense. Again, read “The Other Two Brains”. Mr. Turek, just like Matt Slick, Ken Ham, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyers, and all the others, you have lost touch with Reality. All of y’awl suffer Schizophrenic Delusion Disorder. Also see “Using the DSM-V”. Thus, ultimately, y’awl suffer the Mental Disorder I had defined as Religious Dogmatic Traumatized Disorder (RDTD). DAMNIT! How I wish I had created backups of that dissertation: “How Inexorable Religious Beliefs Should Be Reclassified In The DSM-IV”. It was DSM-IV when I wrote it after spending four years accumulating the needed data. Fucking university pulling a legal injunction. Even sent their Goon Squads to destroy and confiscate all evidence.
All Religitards are the same. They spew Brain Diarrhea, yet have no OHEFE nor doing any serious scientific inquiries. If Michael Behe claims the bacterial flagellum could not have come to be through the ICIDIC of Life, then why is he not performing the experiments to prove his Brain Diarrhea? Why MUST he require others to do HIS experiments for him self? I shall always say time and time, …and time again and again, since you Religitards pull in Hundreds of Billions of $ tax-free every year, just here in America, why don’t y’awl put that money where your rhetorical dogma is? Build a damned research institute like IBM did with RTP in North Carolina. Prove science IS false and that the supernatural does exist. Otherwise,
And the final nail in the IDF coffin, to even hypothesize about intelligent design, you Religitards MUST first prove the intelligent agency, cause, whatthefuckever exists. Without proof of the intelligent agency, cause, whatthefuckever, you cannot claim intelligent design. So… Who are the guilty ones of using the god-of-the-gaps fallacy? Putting the cart before the horse?
— The Unknown Atheist
Copyright © 2024 by RMFR. Licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 International. All Other Rights Reserved
P.S.—One thing you Religitards need to do is to define all these bullshit terms y’awl utilize. Since ALL of these terms are cooked up inside those tiny miscreant retarded brains of Religitards, you cannot assume everyone is going to know what the 7734 you are talking about. This is the most major problem with debating Religitards. They fail to define anything. Especially that God-Thing. One thing I learned about writing. NEVER assume every person will understand an “invented” term. Notice I defined what I mean by the term “Religitard” on me Welcome page. If you chose not to read it, not my fault.
P.P.S.—And what of the upcoming True Gods? The digital ones. This is an excellent video by Rationality Rules: The Religion That Keeps Me Up At Night. I highly recommend his Horse Hoowhee, Bullshit, and Brain Diarrhea. His stuff is great for those whom can think critically and rationally.