Thread by @LarsTheBadMan

@DivinelyDesined Category error, Life is not engineered.

The first premise is simply asserted, not demonstrated. "Only intelligence can engineer complex, interdependent systems" — this is the very thing they need to prove, not assume. We have well-documented natural processes that generate
1/x

@DivinelyDesined complex, interdependent systems without any guiding intelligence: snowflake crystallography, self-organizing chemical oscillations (Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactions), termite mounds, and of course biological evolution via natural selection.
2/x

@DivinelyDesined "Interdependent" ≠ "designed as a unit." This is just irreducible complexity repackaged. Interdependent systems evolve through scaffolding — components that were once independently functional or served different roles become co-dependent as redundant pathways are lost.
3/x

@DivinelyDesined The bacterial flagellum's components, for instance, share homology with the Type III secretion system, showing they were co-opted, not designed from scratch as a unit.
4/x

@DivinelyDesined It smuggles in the conclusion through word choice. Using "engineering" to describe biological systems already presupposes a designer. Natural selection is a non-intelligent process that mimics engineering outcomes through iterative variation and differential
5/x

@DivinelyDesined reproduction over deep time. Calling the result "engineered" is begging the question.
6/x

@DivinelyDesined The "no exception" claim is unfalsifiable as stated. Whenever a natural explanation is provided, ID proponents simply move the goalposts or redefine "complex" and "interdependent" to exclude the example. That's not logic — it's an immunizing strategy.
7/x

@DivinelyDesined The actual most logical conclusion from what we observe is the one with the most supporting evidence: natural selection acting on heritable variation, supplemented by genetic drift, gene duplication, and co-option, is entirely sufficient to produce biological complexity.

8/8