Another lame-o, writing on Dembski’s blog, asks what he obviously thinks is a killer question:
In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: “If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication (sic) and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference?” […]
Answer – NO. Because irreducible complexity does not imply a designer and is not a problem for evolution. In fact, irreducible complexity has been proven to evolve. But this dolt clearly hasn’t heard of this, because he goes on to demonstrate even more stupidity:
If the answer is yes, we just haven’t found any such thing yet, then all the constantly-repeated philosophical arguments that “ID is not science” immediately fall. If the answer is no, then at least the lay observer will be able to understand what is going on here, that Darwinism is not grounded on empirical evidence but a philosophy.
Noooo, that’s not what it shows. It shows that ID is grounded on argument from ignorance. That is, it’s not science.
In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have frequently seen posed to IDists (but is never answered): “If we DID discover some biological feature that (hypothetically) you could demonstrate was irreducibly complex – what would that tell us about the designer. Because if the answer is “nothing” (which it is), then at least we can be clear that ID is useless vacuous nonsense.