Argument against Intelligent Design

[Jrouche]

This syllogism is both sound and valid. (I'm assuming here that "specified complexity" isn't some trick term. If it's the same as just "complexity," then the syllogism is fine.)

However, the conclusion is only that intelligence is only a possible cause. Whether it really is the cause or not, the syllogism doesn't address. 

So nothing is advanced, really. All the work is left to be done.

Thanks for your feedback. have a good night.

Specified complexity is a main tenant of the Intelligent Design claim--used by Dembski to argue for ID validity and was shot downi in court multiple times and by the scientific community as pseudoscience and has many weaknesses. If he's uses the same term his syllogism is faulty before I go further. And if it's not what he means he needs to explain what he means--that's why I require an explanation of terms. Thanks for the feedback, John