The New Theory of Improvident Design

We have a new post by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist of all the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

Casey is the only Discoveroid who isn’t a “fellow,” so a couple of years ago your Curmudgeon compassionately remedied that cruel insult (see: Casey Luskin Is Named a Curmudgeon Fellow). His latest post at the Discoveroids’ blog is Thank Darwin for Dysteleology! Evolution Can’t Lose.

Casey’s post is a continuation of an old theme, namely that intelligent design doesn’t need to be all that intelligent or well-designed. The last time we posted about it was The Designer Can Be Sloppy, and that links to some earlier posts on the same topic. As we said then:

It’s now Discoveroid doctrine that their intelligent designer doesn’t have to produce anything better than evolution does, which is pretty much an admission that their “theory” is not only unnecessary but also ridiculous.

And as we always say whenever they make an excuse for the magic designer’s less-than-perfect handiwork:

We already know that evolution isn’t perfect — its results need only be good enough to achieve survival. But surely the magical designer is better than mere evolution. If not, who needs it? If poor design is nevertheless the handiwork of the great celestial designer — whose name dare not be spoken — then how, pray tell, does an ID “researcher” know when he’s looking at evidence of ID?

Another interesting aspect of this “sloppy design” loophole is that it flatly contradicts an earlier Discoveroid dogma — the designer’s miraculous works have been claimed to be flawless, which is why the Discoveroids insist that there’s no such thing as junk DNA. The last time we wrote about that was Junk DNA Dismay, and that links to our earlier posts on the subject.

But the Discoveroids desperately need the “sloppy design” doctrine. It serves the same purpose as the “sin cursed world” of the young-Earth creationists, upon which the YECs rely to justify anything that doesn’t fit into a providentially-created universe.

Anyway, let’s turn to the new Discoveroid blog article. Casey says, with bold font added by us and some of his links omitted:

A short article in Science, The Burdens of Being a Biped, argues for evolution based on considerations of dysteleology. It claims that “A brief tour of the body reveals a number of design flaws.” The problem, the article says, is that humans are built upon a quadrupedal body plan that wasn’t “designed” to walk upright. This supposedly explains why we commonly suffer from back and other problems related to our bipedal locomotion.

Sounds reasonable. Everyone knows our bodies are far from perfect. Were it otherwise, most physicians would be out of business, and there would be no need for dentists. Let’s read on:

So when natural selection fine-tunes a structure, that’s evidence for evolution. But when “imperfect evolution” has “left us with vertebrae that break more easily, weaker bones, and feet prone to heel spurs and sprained ankles,” that’s also evidence of evolution. Dysteleology is great: evolution can’t lose!

Uh huh. We all talk like that. Actually, we don’t. Functional biological structures aren’t “fine tuned.” They’ve been tested in the arena of nature to be sufficient for survival, and thus to primitive observers they may seem fine tuned, but the reality is that they’re adequate, nothing more. And their adequacy is limited to a narrow range of conditions. Don’t believe it? Then just test them — any of them — with heat or pressure, or any other factor that exceeds their evolved capabilities and watch what happens. It isn’t pretty. Okay, let’s continue:

There’s no question that we all face the prospect of bodily ailments we wish we could avoid. But Science has succumbed to the fallacy of arguing for evolution by citing undesirable design. In fact, undesirable features of our anatomy and physiology are no more a proof of evolution than they are a disproof of intelligent design.

Wrong, Casey. Sloppy design of any degree is consistent with evolution, but it most definitely contradicts the concept of an intelligent designer. Here’s more:

Of course it’s possible too that humans suffer from unique ailments having nothing to do with evolution. Maybe our unique problems stem from the fact that we’re one of the only fully bipedal mammals — by far the largest one, at that. In other words, we’re a unique species, so it’s not surprising we suffer ailments “that no other animal does.”

Huh? Surely the celestial designer — blessed be he! — would have taken special care in crafting our unique species. Or if one is more scripturally inclined, in making us “in His image.” The literal Genesis folks can always use original sin as an excuse for physical flaws. The Discoveroids have no excuse, except their growing acceptance of exceedingly tolerant design specifications. Moving along:

There may be an additional explanation for why humans have so many back problems — and it too has nothing to do with evolution. It may, however, have something to do with error or incompetence — that is, on the part of the design’s user, rather than the designer.

Ah yes. There’s nothing wrong with the design, but we don’t know how to use it. Great excuse! But it won’t work. We expect our man-made products, if they’re well-designed, to work perfectly — right out of the box. And they do, or we demand our money back. Surely the intelligent designer should be sufficiently competent to meet those reasonable expectations.

After purporting to quote from the Science article about how our bones are less brittle when we get proper exercise, Casey concludes with this:

So, our bodies work best when they get lots of exercise — but that’s exactly what we lazy folks in the Western world aren’t getting enough of. If our bodies were “designed” to get more exercise, maybe the cause of many ailments isn’t “design flaw,” but user-error. Seems like when used properly, our bodies aren’t so poorly designed after all.

Sorry, Casey. Nice try, but that still doesn’t do the job. Some of the most damaged spines and knees and ankles are those of professional athletes, and they were very well exercised at the time of their injuries. The young-Earth creationists have a better excuse — it’s all Adam & Eve’s fault. But if you Discoveroids want to tout your new theory of improvident design, that’s okay with us.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

34 responses to “The New Theory of Improvident Design

  1. “Sloppy design of any degree is consistent with evolution, but it most definitely contradicts the concept of an intelligent designer.”

    It is more than that. “Sloppy design” is not only consistent with evolution, evolutionary history often explains why it couldn’t be different than it is. The recurrent laryngeal nerve (http://sandwalk.blogspot.de/2009/07/evolution-and-lack-of-design.html) is a good example for that. Given the evolutionary history of the laryngeal nerve it must be routed as it is.

    The objection to the sloppy designer explanation is not only that an intelligent designer would’ve done it differently, it is also that the claim a designer could’ve worked sloppy doesn’t explain anything. A sloppy designer might as well have wrapped the laryngeal nerve twice around the neck or whathaveyou. It doesn’t explain why the laryngeal nerve’s route is what it is.

    IDist love to pretend that the only objection against design explanations are semi-theological (how can you know what the designer would’ve done), when in reality it is more along the lines of “you don’t have an explanation that derives logically from your claim which would explain the status quo while evolutionary theory provides just that.”

  2. Another example of ID failing to provide any real answer or theory…

    Who reads DI articles other than the Curmudgeon? It would be interesting to see what kind of traffic they get.

  3. I see this type of analysis by Creationists all the time. They read an article in a perfectly legitimate scientific publication, then twist it with conclusions the authors could never come to by any stretch of the scientific truth. I wonder if any of those researchers ever see how their work is distorted by these Discoveroid, WND, ICR and etc. types.

    Surely, with all the millions they receive in donations and tax relief, the Discoveroids can design a Designer Detection Lab there in Seattle. I eagerly await their seminal works.

  4. So why didn’t the Designer sign their work with an unmistakable signature? One incontrovertible message written out in DNA font and there wouldn’t be all this fuss.

  5. aturingtest

    Casey: “So when natural selection fine-tunes a structure, that’s evidence for evolution. ”
    Again with the misconception that feeds all their other misconceptions (deliberate or otherwise). They see “evolution” as an entity, necessarily in competition with theirs, instead of simply as a process with no goals, just results. Natural selection doesn’t “fine-tune” anything, Casey, and no one has ever claimed it does. That’s your claim for your “designer”- and your projection to cover the fact that he doesn’t, apparently, “fine-tune” very well.

  6. retiredsciguy

    Perhaps the Discoveroids could get around this dilemma by re-branding ID to SLTID — Slightly Less Than Intelligent Design.

  7. Firstly, I think it might be appropriate to update you guys on ID.

    • It is not a developed theory per se, but rather, an investigative hypothesis.
    • It is based on evidentiary indicators of design.
    • Complexity is a factor, but not of the driftwood variety ["PZ" + "driftwood"].
    • Posited by Behe but skewed by Miller’s interpretations, IC is a valid operative.
    • NEC [non-evolvable complexity] where intermediates offer no selective advantage is my hypothesis.
    • Both NS and ID/DS [directed selection of intelligent input] are evolutionary operatives.

    Secondly, dispense with the notion that ID was consummated to lend a scientific appearance to creationist views. That is only true in selected instances where creationists chose to coopt the ID term. Kitzmiller v. Dover is a prime example.

    And the view of ‘flawed design’ is a completely subjective human(ist) view, and easily refuted.

    • No design by any agency is perfect, in particular via man’s definition of perfect.
    • Biologic designs, along with self-propagation mechanisms are designs of a high order.
    • An intent of a flawless design would be purposeless and accomplish nothing.
    • The assumption of omniscience is based on a Biblical premise, thus a non-sequitur to ID.
    • The arguments I’ve heard of ‘bad design’ are themselves flawed.
    • By the current ID premise, design by intervention [genetic engineering events] is how novel phyla have formed. Mayr’s speciation definition does not apply to novelty formation.

    In short, try rational thinking as opposed to a concerted, non-evolvable [fixated] view of reality. Refusal to even consider the possibility of intervention within biologic progressions is close-mindedness on steroids.

    Or do you really hold to the dated view that humans are the only intelligence is the Cosmos? We are not.

  8. leebowman says:

    Firstly, I think it might be appropriate to update you guys on ID.

    Yeah, we need updating.

    In short, try rational thinking as opposed to a concerted, non-evolvable [fixated] view of reality.

    Not a good beginning. I fear that your tenure here won’t be a very long one.

  9. A loss of tenure would be understandable. But if I espouse nonsense, I would think that my points would be easily assailable.

    Anyway, my point regarding ID was simply that ID in its foundational premise is based upon design inferences, if and only if confirmed, rather than religious views, which I agree can impinge upon valid science.

    Just posted a similar round of thots over at Novella’s blog.
    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/leakey-on-evolution/comment-page-1/

    Cheers,
    Lee

    I support science completely

  10. docbill1351

    Crawl back under your rock, Lee, nobody cares what you “think.”

    Back to Casey, why is it that a lawyer writes this article and not one of the brilliant IDC ™ “theorists” like Dembski, Wells, Behe or Meyer? All we ever get are non-practicing lawyers, failed journalists and crackpots (Lee). It’s not even sporting! Hydroplate Theory, prove me wrong!

    One final comment since I’m supposed to be on holiday, and I visited the Natural History museum in London yesterday, I would say that the T Rex was a pretty good sized biped, as were the hadrosaurs and the giant sloth. A large living biped would be the ostrich and I think the Crinoidea walks upright, too.

  11. leebowman says: “I support science completely”

    So do the Discoveroids. Just ask them.

  12. Lee Bowman said:

    It is not a developed theory per se, but rather, an investigative hypothesis.

    The Discovery Institute would disagree with you. Their web page explicitly states (my emphasis added): “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.”

    It is based on evidentiary indicators of design.

    Name one.

    Complexity is a factor, but not of the driftwood variety

    Which means precisely… what? “If it’s complex, it’s designed”?

    The assumption of omniscience is based on a Biblical premise, thus a non-sequitur to ID.

    And the assumption of supernatural design explicitly means that ID is a non-sequitor to science.

    By the current ID premise, design by intervention [genetic engineering events] is how novel phyla have formed.

    Fine. When exactly did the designer design novel phyla and how can we test for it?
    Finally,

    I support science completely

    You keep using that word “science”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  13. Dear Mr. Bowman,
    I apologize that I don’t have time this morning to respond in full to your comments. Please allow me to merely say …

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Perhaps later I can return to this subject, and we can enjoy hours of laughter together.

    Regards,
    TA

  14. I’ll make this brief, since args for ID can be lengthy.

    I disagree with DI’s definition regarding “features of the universe”, since Cosmic design, if designed, does not meet the requirement of confirmable ‘design inferences’, which are primarily statistically based probabilities, and replicable to a degree [never completely].

    Summarily, “evidentiary indicators of design” are subjective inferences only, given their historic/ forensic nature of evolutionary theory. What is more verifiable at present is the falsification of natural causation, again via subjective analyses including statistical improbabilities.

    There is no assumption of “supernatural design”, since directed natural causation [gene tweaking] is empirically demonstrable to alter a phenotypic outcome.

    Regarding “when did the designer design novel phyla”, I posit MDT [multi-designer theory], possibly under a hierarchical authority. But ID does not delve into that area at this juncture.

    I use the word ‘science’, since the perusal of ID evidences is based on observation and dissection of the same data used to disseminate current evolutionary theory. There are no ‘magical’ or ‘supernatural’ presumptions made by me regarding biologic designs.

    By the way, I like tomatoes as well, primarily a slowly grown ‘on the vine’ variety.

  15. NeonNoodle

    Problem is, design theories (or design “inferences” in DI newspeak. Apparently Lee got the memo,) are science-enders; a too-convenient “Get-out-of-jail-free” card that replaces thinking. All the fudging of definitions in the world can’t change this. Ultimately, since “Goddidit” explains everything, why waste time experimenting, gathering evidence, testing hypotheses, etc? What’s the point? Dinner’s getting cold.

  16. Y’all gettin’ bored with leebowman? I don’t see any entertainment value there, but I’ll let it go a while longer if anyone is having fun.

  17. @leebowman writes; “There is no assumption of “supernatural design”.

    That makes no sense. Are you suggesting some sort of aliens appeared on the earth on a regular basis over the past 3.5 billion years to “gene tweak” millions of different organisms, with a goal of creating this particular ecosystem we live in today? Granted, the existence of a supernatural designer is wildly more improbable, but postulating aliens operating over billions of years on billions of organisms is not much better. Based on their statements to religious audiences and made explicit in the wedge document, the leading authorities in the ID movement are very clear as to their belief that the designer is supernatural, and is in fact God.

    @leebowman also writes; “Summarily, “evidentiary indicators of design” are subjective inferences only, given their historic/ forensic nature of evolutionary theory. What is more verifiable at present is the falsification of natural causation, again via subjective analyses including statistical improbabilities.”

    Indicators of design are, as you correctly state, subjective. The fundamental basis of ID is the belief that if something looks designed, it is. Everything that follows, for an ID advocate, is an attempt to justify his belief. The problem is that there is no evidence of design, no detected designer, etc. So the ID advocate resorts the the second part of your statement, that is, attempts to falsify natural causation. ID is left in the unenviable position of trying to prove a negative. In the absence of evidence in support of his position, the ID advocate makes up probability arguments – always focusing on the probability of this or that specific natural event, and never calculating the probability of his asserted intelligent design alternative. After all, how would one calculate the probability of any given supernatural entity, or aliens acting over billions of years?

    On the other hand, a scientist looking at an apparently irreducibly complex structure or process would wonder how it came to be, and investigate. He would not throw up his hands and say “this is impossible, it must be god (or a designer).” His inquiry would therefore be directed at discovering a plausible causal sequence of events leading to the structure or process, and if he could not find one, he would admit that he did not know. He would not conclude, simply because he could not work out a plausible sequence, that there was none.

    ID depends on finding things that look designed, for which there is no precisely worked out and proven evolutionary history. It is the god-of-the-gaps approach. There are two (probably more) major flaws in the logic of this approach, however. (1) The fact that we do not know every single step in a sequence of events does not mean that they did not occur, or that we will not know them in the future – that is, there is no proof that the gap exists. (2) The absence of one non-design explanation (i.e. evolution) does not mean that other non-design explanations do not exist and await discovery – that is, there is no proven need to invoke god to fill the gap.

    In summary, despite the protestations of the lawyers and others at the DI, there is no positive evidence supporting ID, which reduced to subjective, flawed arguments about probability. Evolution, on the other hand, is based on positive evidence.

  18. Lee Bowman writes> “… since Cosmic design, if designed, does not meet the requirement of confirmable ‘design inferences’, which are primarily statistically based probabilities, and replicable to a degree [never completely]. …”

    I’m going to disagree here – those results are completely replicable.
    [Statistical-Soapbox=ON]
    In fact, that test can only give one outcome. This “Irreducible Complextiy” and “Complex Specified Information” nonsense boils down to, if (and only if) I am generous, a malformed Likelihood Ratio Test, with an implicit assumption that the probability of Design/God/Cheesecake is 1.0. Generosity is required, because the assumptions are never stated. But, if we let that slide, then we have a test which disproves anything and everything. Take the probabilities [0<p<1] for any sufficiently long series of historical events, multiply them all together, and you get a really really small number. Not small enough for you? Add a few more probabilities to the series and it will be. TRY IT.
    This can ONLY give back the conclusion that wasassumed to have a probability of one in the first place. (Mmmm … Cheesecake!)
    [Statistical-Soapbox=OFF]

    This topic has come up several times in recent discussion. See comment sections here and here for additional whackage.

    Lee Bowman writes> “… By the way, I like tomatoes as well, primarily a slowly grown ‘on the vine’ variety.”

    Well, at least we agree about tomatoes. This may also explain some of your interesting ideas about statistics. ;-)

  19. I’ll give Lee two points: He’s polite, and he’s grammatically correct. The problem is that (a) he appears to enjoy using big words and (b), even though he claims he’s different from the DI, he’s using their standard method of “I’m not the close-minded one; YOU’RE the close-minded one.”
    Put simply, don’t bother putting a price tag on your argument, Lee. I’m not buying it.

  20. Oh, and what Ed and TA said: +1.

  21. Tomato Addict says: “we have a test which disproves anything and everything.”

    In other words: all talk, no data.

  22. Ed, you can use the term alien to connote an unknown entity, but rather than ‘little green men’ we are most likely dealing here with spirit based entities, rather than bioforms, which are short lived, temporal, and constrained to extremely narrowly defined environmental parameters. Some would posit that those would entail supernaturality, but I do not, since they exist within the natural world.

    Regarding DI, some do hold to the Judeo-Christian God as sole creator, but ID proper relies upon empirical evidence only. There are certainly those within DI who lean more in the direction of empirical evidence than of Christian beliefs as the source of ID confirmation. ID, by definition, entails that avenue of pursuit.

    Indicators of design are, as you correctly state, subjective. The fundamental basis of ID is the belief that if something looks designed, it is.

    It is not a ‘belief’ but a conclusion based on the evidence. And subjective assessment is not necessarily illusory, but based in part on prior experience. Deductive conclusions can then follow.

    Everything that follows, for an ID advocate, is an attempt to justify his belief.

    Again, not a belief, but a conclusion based upon complexity which can be shown to be non-evolvable by gradual steps with no selective advantages. As well, co-dependent and multi-dependent systems cannot logically evolve stepwise due to their co-dependency. To overcome these restraints, exaptation has been posited, but to occur at nearly every stage of development is statistically implausible.

    The problem is that there is no evidence of design, no detected designer, etc.

    Design trumps adaptation, since adaptive modifications are just that; adaptations to environmental changes, are inherently limited, and thus grossly overrated as producers of novelty. Adaptation may be a ‘designed in’ function to minimize extinctions.

    So the ID advocate resorts [to] the second part of your statement, that is, attempts to falsify natural causation. ID is left in the unenviable position of trying to prove a negative.

    While true that you can’t prove a negative, unless and until natural causation to produce novelty and complexity beyond micro- adaptive alterations, NS thus remains in a non-verified state. Not disproven; just un-verified at this juncture.

    In the absence of evidence in support of his position, the ID advocate makes up probability arguments – always focusing on the probability of this or that specific natural event, and never calculating the probability of his asserted intelligent design alternative. After all, how would one calculate the probability of any given supernatural entity, or aliens acting over billions of years?

    Statistical analyses are tools of science. Short of empirical replication, it’s all we have to reconstruct prior events. Drosophila were a valiant empirical attempt, which yielded nothing but misplaced eyes and wings over more than 100 years of testing and a great number of gestations, a sad outcome to a noble (but failed) effort at producing novel species.

    The fact that we do not know every single step in a sequence of events does not mean that they did not occur, or that we will not know them in the future –

    I agree, however Dan-Eric Nilsson in his attempt to explain eye evolution focused solely on the progressive invagination of a light-sensitive patch to establish his probabilities. Many other areas of development need be analyzed, including complex photoreceptor placement, glial (photon guiding) structures, and replenishment processes, not to mention musculature for aiming and focusing. Also, how these structures form via hox gene directives.

    The absence of one non-design explanation (i.e. evolution) does not mean that other non-design explanations do not exist and await discovery –

    Multiply that by tens of thousands and you’re getting warm. And yes, evolution has occurred, but by processes still unknown.

  23. Curmie: “In other words: all talk, no data.”

    Yes.
    I would allow it might be data given a well formed hypothesis and if the sample space for the historical events could be defined. This can be done (a Markov-Chain) in specific cases. However, to suggest it can be done for the entirety of evolutionary history, is … … I don’t have a word to adequately express how silly it is. Dembski actually gets the LRT math mostly right, but dodges the part about how {colorful-adjective} crazy the premise is in the first place. I believe he wrote it is “…not yet possible …”.

    It is worth mentioning that Irreducibly Complexity assumes statistically independent random mutations. An alternate interpretation of IC is that natural selection is not random, which is what TOE has stated all along.Charles Darwin said it first.

    Also, given that beneficial combinations of mutations might happen and a modest selective pressure, it’s not too hard to show that beneficial mutations will happen with probability approaching one in a finite number of generation cycles. I think this is why the ID folks HATE Richard Dawkin’s WEASEL algorithm so much.

  24. Okay, leebowman. You’ve had your say.

  25. Oh shucks. I was so looking forward to his next interpretation of math.

    I’ll get over it. :-)

  26. Lee Bowman said:

    Ed, you can use the term alien to connote an unknown entity, but rather than ‘little green men’ we are most likely dealing here with spirit based entities,

    Based on what? You’ve provided as much evidence for your “spirit based entities” as Ed has for aliens, meaning none at all. Except you are the one positing such a thing. That means the onus is on you to provide the evidence. And if you are positing that such entities have supernatural powers, then you’ve left the field of science completely.

    Regarding DI, some do hold to the Judeo-Christian God as sole creator, but ID proper relies upon empirical evidence only.

    Uh, no. Now you’re peeing on my leg and telling me how nice the rain is. DI is all about their brand of Christianity, as espoused on their own “About Us” page: “Specifically, it seeks to defend the importance of Judeo-Christian conceptions of the rule of law, the nature of man and the necessity of limiting the power of government.” Since you and the DI (who appear to be the major force behind ID) seem to have a disagreement, get it straight amongst yourselves before trying to sell it to the rest of us.

    It is not a ‘belief’ but a conclusion based on the evidence.

    For which you’ve provided exactly zero evidence.

    however Dan-Eric Nilsson in his attempt to explain eye evolution focused solely on the progressive invagination of a light-sensitive patch to establish his probabilities. Many other areas of development need be analyzed, including complex photoreceptor placement, glial (photon guiding) structures, and replenishment processes, not to mention musculature for aiming and focusing. Also, how these structures form via hox gene directives.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Dan-Erik Nilsson got it all wrong. Evolution doesn’t explain anything… blah, blah, blah. We get it. The problem is that (and I feel this is becoming a mantra if not a meme), you’ve provided zero evidence and/or original research with your different ideas in your different “areas of development”. Even if you were to show that Dr. Nilsson was incorrect, that would provide you precisely zero evidence for ID. To provide such evidence, you have to… provide some evidence. So, when can we expect your peer-reviewed paper with the research on one of these other “areas of development”?
    Until that happens, TA and I will be having a Monty Python marathon at the local pub. Something tells me we’ll be able to get through all of the Flying Circus episodes, Life of Brian, The Holy Grail, and The Meaning of Life, as well as their lesser known movies and all of their audio soundtracks. With lots of time to spare.

  27. Gaaaaah! That’s what happens when I type too slow!

  28. NeonNoodle

    TA and I will be having a Monty Python marathon at the local pub.

    What time?

  29. @NeonNoodle: If you were Lee Bowman, I’d say, “Right after our morning run, which kicks off at 5 am. If we’re not there right at 5, go ahead and start without us. We’ll catch up.”
    But since you’re not, I’ll simply say, “We’ve not chosen a start time yet. Nor is there any need to rush to get started. We have lots of time.”

  30. Gary: “Until that happens, TA and I will be having a Monty Python marathon at the local pub.”

    Where we will happily knock back a few Spirit Based Entities!

  31. Nothing to see here, just fixing my HTML. These aren’t the ‘droids you are looking for. Move along …

  32. It occurs to me that Irreducible Complexity/CSI is just a quote mine of statistical theory. They lift out a few equations, ignoring what it actually means and how it should be used. I’ve ranted enough for one post already, but if it’s not clear already; countering IR probability arguments by taking about probabilities is implicitly allowing flawed assumptions. Don’t let them get away with it.

  33. In order to accept ID’s conclusions I must first accept that ID’ers are the ultimate experts in the field being discussed.