The (Flawed) Logic of Intelligent Design

This is a response to an article on the Discovery Institute website:

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/fundamentals-friday-the-logic-of-intelligent-design/

The point of the article is the claim that ID is not simply a God-of-the-gaps argument. Instead:

In reality, the logic of ID theory is this:
  • Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce the large amounts of specified information necessary to produce the first cell.
  • Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
  • Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell.
Is that good logic?

I think not. Consider this argument:

  • Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no non-human causes have been discovered with the power to produce the large amounts of specified information necessary to produce the first cell. 
  • Premise Two: Humans have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. 
  • Conclusion: Humans constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell.

If premise one of the D's argument is true, then premise one of my argument must also be true. The same can be said of premise two; if it is true for the DI, it is true here too, though this is far less controversial!

And if the logic of the DI argument is good, then it must also be good for my argument, as the logic is identical.

Therefore if the DI are right, then it must follow that not only a intelligent designer was the origin of he specified information in the cell, but that intelligent designer must have been human!

Personally, I think the DI's argument is wrong. I think premise one is wrong, and I think the logic is wrong. I reject both arguments.

Creationists want the DI's argument to be true, but my argument to be false, so have to reject the logic of one, but not the other, despite it being the same!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Southern Baptist Convention Position on Abortion

Evangelical Christians in the US are very strongly anti-abortion. However, it was not always so. As recently as 1970 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) - the largest Protestant denomination in the US - advocated for legalising abortion. A Complete Reversal The landmark law case in the US was Roe v. Wade, in 1973, and abortion has been legal since that time. Jane Roe was the pseudonym of the woman wanting the abortion; Henry Wade the district attorney who stood for the state, prohibiting it. Roe was represented by two attorneys; one was Linda Coffee, a member of the SBC. The Baptist Press interviewed her after the successful conclusion of the trial. The decision of Roe v Wade was generally regarded as a good one by the SBC. To evangelicals of that time abortion was seen as a Catholic issue. You can find a list of abortion-related resolutions made by the SBC from 1971 onwards  here . It is clear that in 1971 they saw abortion - quite reasonably - as undesirable, but it ...
Read more

Hinman's "Argument From Transcendental Signifier"

ETA (23/Jun/20): I have just heard Joe is in hospital. I wish him a speedy recovery. All the best, Joe. This is an argument for God that Joe Hinman has presented several times on various of his sites: http://www.doxa.ws/Ontological/TS2.html https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/01/premises-4-7-ts-argumet.html The argument is a seven step syllogism: 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops) 2. OP's summed up in TS 3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. 4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe. 5. minds organize and communicate meaning 6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS 7. Concept of God unites TS with universal m...
Read more

Kent Hovind: Third wife in three years?

Kent Hovind is, perhaps the very worst of the creationists, so it is with some interest I note that he is now on this third wife in three years. For many years he was married to Jo Hovind, who ended up going to prison for a year due to her involvement in tax fraud. Once Kent got released from his rather longer prison sentence, it was not long before Jo filed for divorce (early 2016) - possibly to distance himself from any further gaol sentences. A few months later, 24th Sptember 2016, and he married Mary Tocco - not a full marriage, but a covenant before God. It looks like she got various assurances that Kent's new business was entirely honest before she got married. However, she later cam to realise that that was not really the case, and, again to avoid ending up in prison , she left him in November 2017. http://kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind Less than a year later and he has a new wife, Cindi Lincoln, a former friend of Mary's. It is not clear if they ...
Read more