Intelligent Design: The Universe
Proponents of the theory of ID like to cite a fallacious argument that the universe was created for us, because when considering all the factors involved, if you vary some of these factors by any amount at all, life, at least as we know it, could not even exist. Therefore because the universe is so complex they see god as the mechanism by which these factors came to be as they are, giving rise to life.
At its core the, this is an example of an argument from ignorance fallacy, essentially asking how do we explain the amazing complexity of the universe and it’s ability to spawn life if not for a god?
The answer as it turns out appears to be by entirely natural causes, some of which are known to science, and some of which are not.
In addition, when one considers the true immensity of the universe as we have come to understand it, and how 99.99999999999% of it is entirely uninhabitable, saying it was all intelligently designed for us seems like the most self centered egotistical absurdity possible.
——————————————
Another intelligent design argument is a rebuttal to evolution known as “Specified Complexity.”
Specified Complexity is a term that was made up for this particular argument, and is not pre-existing the intelligent design assertion.
The term as it is used in this instance is not accepted by mainstream academics in part because “Specified Complexity” is a necessarily “circular” argument. It is therefore logically fallacious.
In this context what is meant by “specified” is selected by some intelligence, as opposed to selected by natural causation (by nature).
If the claim is “Specified Complexity is valid evidence for proof of intelligent design,” then substitute “selected by some intelligence” in place of “Specified.” or… Intelligently selected complexity is valid evidence for proof of intelligent design
Circularly pointing out intelligence is proof of intelligence. Defining the premise to include the conclusion.
If you start by saying “specified” complexity, you have already inserted an intelligence as part of the premises.
——————————————-
The actual concept of specified complexity was also shot down in the dover vs. Kitzmiller trial, where scientific data and evidence was explained in great detail to the court showing conclusively that the whole concept of Specified Complexity is wrong on its basic premise, that some structures found in nature are too complicated to form via naturally occurring processes alone.
The conservative federal judge assigned to the case and who was appointed by George W Bush was openly Christian, and amazingly did a great job with his ruling, ultimately declaring in a lengthy and well supported decision that Intelligent design was just creationism, an unsupported religious claim not to be taught in our schools.
There you have it! According to the federal Judge ruling on the case, the the official ruling is, Intelligent design is not science!
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
End date: December 20, 2005
On December 20, 2005, Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate requiring the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional. The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from “maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”
——————————————–
Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution.
ID proponents tell us that we are perfectly designed. Yet there are in fact plenty of problems with our design they like to ignore. Why do men have nipples or do we each have an appendix, it could become inflamed, burst and kill you, but if you remove it you will live a long and healthy life without serious repercussions. We are not the strongest animal, or the fastest, or the animal with the best sense of smell or the best eyesight, or hearing. We cant fly, or reproduce at will simply by replication. We are not the longest living life forms. We think we are the smartest creature on the planet, but can’t be sure at this point that is even true. It would be extremely unlikely, in light of what we know about the universe, that we are the smartest form of life in the cosmos.
If you were the designer of everything in the universe, would such an imperfect being be your crowning achievement? I’m a designer by trade and if I have in my tool box the ability to design and create all the life forms found in the universe, my crowning achievement in the filed of life form design would take all the best abilities I can bestow on a life form and make it the fastest smartest longest living strongest, best seeing, hearing, most powerful being I can come up with.
But that isn’t what we find in nature. Instead we see a huge random assortment of ability’s distributed over many different life forms coming from as many different environments and demonstrating the amazing diversity of life. That is exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory, that all animals including us evolved to have the traits we do because of how are environments selected naturally for them.
