(March 25, 2017 at 2:46 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote:(March 25, 2017 at 7:53 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Specified complexity as it has been advanced by proponents like William Dembski is known to be pseudoscientific. Its claims to mathematical rigor are false and it depends upon unspecified statistical operations. Moreover, it's a thinly veiled cover for religious speculations as the unspecified designer is presumed to be God, and not a naturalistic speculation like panspermia. This takes it outside the realm of legitimate scientific speculation. At bottom of the specified complexity argument is the analogy that because human designers produce artifacts possessing specified complexity, the existence of specified complexity is an indication of a non-natural process (design). This ignores the fact that human capacity for design is supposedly naturalistic in origin as having been the product of evolution.
Irreducible complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance and thus doesn't qualify as a scientific hypothesis. It, too, postulates a supernatural designer by necessity.
Contrary to your claim that ID proponents do not push teaching ID in schools, one of the best funded organizations, the Discovery Institute, does just that by promoting its covert campaign to "Teach The Controversy."
Yes, I know they want evolution to be taught as a controversy, but currently are not for pushing ID into public schools.
Because they can't come up with a rigor for it. Just bald assertions. The Unintelligent Design Institute didn't want the Dover Bored of Education to add it to the curriculum. That's why they didn't send an serious "talent" to the trial.
