Design inference

Design or accident? Ann Coulter recounts a true story of how the difference matters

Spread the love
Ann Coulter

In “Amanda Knox: The New Mumia!” (Townhall, September 9, 2011), Ann Coulter offers an instance of the design inference, in a criminal case:

The facts aren’t elusive: In December 2009, the Italian court released a 400-plus page report detailing the mountains of evidence that led the judges and jury to conclude that Knox, along with her Italian beau, Raffaele Sollecito, and a petty thief of her acquaintance, Rudy Guede, had murdered Knox’s English roommate, Meredith Kercher, on the evening of Nov. 1, 2007.

Police first came to the house the day after the murder to investigate a burglary in the bedroom of another roommate, Filomena Romanelli, that had been reported by Knox and Sollecito.

But the break-in turned out to be staged. Among many other reasons, glass from the broken window was on top of the piles of clothes thrown on the floor. (Always remember to break the window before trying to stage a burglary!)

Also, nothing had been stolen from Filomena’s room. Of course, that wasn’t known by anyone except the fake “burglar”; until Filomena returned and determined her jewelry and other valuables were still there.

Obviously not a pro hit.

So it is especially telling that when Sollecito had called the police to report the “burglary” in two separate, recorded phone calls, he said nothing had been stolen — despite the fact that Filomena had not yet come home. The only way Sollecito would know nothing was stolen was if he had helped stage the burglary himself.

Everyone uses the design inference all the time. Except when it’s illegal. Like when Darwinists get hold of compulsory, tax-funded schooling.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

19 Replies to “Design or accident? Ann Coulter recounts a true story of how the difference matters

  1. 1
    StephenB says:

    I once explained to a Darwinist on this site that we can draw an inference about the general cause of a ransacked living room. A tornado (natural cause) leaves different clues than a burglar (intelligent cause) and I elaborated on many of them. The Darwinist, however, insisted that we cannot a make inference to design by ruling out natural causes because a tornado can, indeed, rip the mattress open, leave furniture untouched, open up the dresser drawers, and run off with the jewelry.

  2. 2
    idnet.com.au says:

    I am fairly sure that it would be hard to tell the difference between my son’s room before or after a burglary.

  3. 3
    noam_ghish says:

    it is not in UD’s interest to refer to Anne Coulter on their website. This woman is far too irrational to be referred to

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    noam_ghish states:

    it is not in UD’s interest to refer to Anne Coulter on their website. This woman is far too irrational to be referred to

    Well if irrationality were a measure for being referred to on UD, then neo-Darwinists would never be referred to at all, since they have irrationality down to a science! 🙂

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: This week on Unbelievable Christian Radio;

    This week on Unbelievable : William Lane Craig answers listener Questions & talks about UK tour
    http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

    also of note:

    British Humanists (Toynbee, Dawkins & Grayling) Run from William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mioJYqRVDE

  6. 6

    Well, that Darwinist must have been having an off day, I think 🙂

  7. 7

    I emailed William Lane Craig offering to replace Polly Toynbee. I haven’t had a reply.

  8. 8
    StephenB says:

    So you agree, in principle, that one can legitimately draw an inference to design by ruling out natural causes?

  9. 9
    ScottAndrews says:

    Aside from her inflammatory statements, she’s about as politically polarized as a person can get. ID is science, not political, but this could confuse a person.
    Plus, remember that ridiculous photo of Michelle Bachmann on Newsweek? No one thinks she really looks like that. But I saw Coulter in a TV interview and she really did look like that. It was disturbing. She looked possessed.
    (In case my comment raises the question, I’m not aligned with any political party or movement.)

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Your humility is noted

  11. 11

    You actually did it? I’m impressed.

  12. 12

    No, I think you can legitimately infer design by testing design hypotheses.

  13. 13
    junkdnaforlife says:

    Polly Toynbee has already been replaced. And in a rigid academic format, like the arenas Craig debates in, your slippery lawyer-like arguments would get boxed in and hammered.

  14. 14

    I’m glad to hear she has been replaced.

    As for your assertion, we won’t know, will we?

    (“Slippery, lawyer-like” is a description of my arguments I haven’t heard before. I don’t know about “lawyer-like” – I do like precision. “Slippery”, I most definitely deny, as I deny all accusations that imply dishonesty, and it is precisely in the sense that I am lawyer-like that I am not slippery – I like to nail things down. Sometimes it feels like trying nail jello to a wall, though.)

  15. 15
    markf says:

    Good on you.

    From what I have seen of him, I don’t see Toynbee’s problem. I would love to have a chance to debate with him – but I fear you have to have some credentials.

  16. 16
    Timbo says:

    Totally agree with the comments above on the irrationality of Anne Coulter, and I would say the same about Michelle Bachmann. Michelle Bachmann is either a liar or very stupid. Either of those characteristics you would think would rule her out of high office. Yet people seem to rate her. Astounding.

  17. 17
    StephenB says:

    So, in the absence of a tested hypothesis, you don’t think it is possible to discern the intelligent act of a burglar from the natural act of a tornado? That would put you in the same category of the Darwinist that you said was having an off day when he made the same claim.

  18. 18
    StephenB says:

    So, in the absence of a tested hypothesis, you don’t think it is possible to discern the intelligent act of a burglar from the natural act of a tornado? That would put you in the same category as the Darwinist that you said was having an off day when he made the same claim.

  19. 19
    William J Murray says:

    I guess until the scientific world agrees upon a “legitimate design hypothesis” they best close up shop when it comes to all those unfounded pseudo-scientific areas of investigation – criminal forensics, archaeology, cryptography, SETI, etc.

Leave a Reply