If ID is a theory

[DevotiontoBible]

You cannot construct a logical argument for an intellingent designer that has unimpeachable premises. You can try, but you will fail.

Here you go, have a ball:

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is, the way they exist and coexist display and intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end i.e. the organs in the body work for our life and health.

2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or intelligent design.

3. Not chance.

4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.

5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.

6. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Here you go, have a ball:

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is, the way they exist and coexist display and intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end i.e. the organs in the body work for our life and health.

A "staggering amount" compared to what? Do you happen to have an example universe handy that is largely unintelligible for comparison?

2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or intelligent design.

I think it has been pointed out to you that this is a false dichotomy. The laws of physics are non-chance entities.

3. Not chance.

That is a conclusion, and it does not follow from previous premises.

4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.

Therefore, this conclusion is false.

5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.

Except for snowflakes and mineral crystals, and, well, just about everything found in nature.

6. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

Not even close.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

That is a conclusion, and it does not follow from previous premises.

.

We can only understand chance only against a background of order. To say something happened by chance is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected. But expectation is impossible without order. If you take away order and speak of chance alone as a kind of ultimate source, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of chance at all. Instead of thinking of chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order against a random and purposeless background of chance. That is incredible. Therefore it is reasonable to affirm the third premise, not chance.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

Here you go, have a ball:

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is, the way they exist and coexist display and intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end i.e. the organs in the body work for our life and health.

2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or intelligent design.

3. Not chance.

4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.

5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.

6. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

Alright, define intelligence and give us a way to measure it. If it is so obvious this should be an easy and unrefutable task.

 

[Erock83]

The laws of physics are non-chance entities.

While I agree with some of what DB said. I’ll play DA just because I believe you have the intellectual capacity to answer this question in a very understandable manner. So here it goes.
Know: law of motion
Know: the ability to quantify and qualify the laws
Thus the question would be not do we have a firm understanding of the physical laws? But where did the physical laws come from?
You are very correct that there are many probable answers to the latter question however a pre-fait deity in no way shape or form affect or attempts to alter the understanding of the law, the application of those laws, nor the ability to reject or accept the case for an author to those laws.
One Love

 

[TeddyKGB]

We can only understand chance only against a background of order. To say something happened by chance is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected. But expectation is impossible without order. If you take away order and speak of chance alone as a kind of ultimate source, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of chance at all. Instead of thinking of chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order against a random and purposeless background of chance. That is incredible. Therefore it is reasonable to affirm the third premise, not chance.

That is just a fancy way to say that chance cannot give rise to order - a premise that your argument depends upon.

As I noted, it is a false dichotomy in any case.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

ID doesn't use God as an explanation for the Designer. Sound logic, without using any religious teachings, stops at an intelligent designer for explaining the cosmos instead of random chance. ID is like solving a murder; you have a dead body that didn't die of natural causes and you conclude murder...but you don't know WHO did it.

So, you believe the judge in the Dover, PA case (a conservative Christian Bush appointee) was an "activist" judge--legislating from the bench--when he ruled that id was in fact obviously religious, and Judeo-Christian to boot, in nature.

Also, part of science is making hypotheses and then testing them. Do you agree with this?

If no, explain what the use of hypotheses is in science.

If yes, please provide a hypothesis as to who/what the designer is and how one could test for him/her/it.

Just make a hypotheses (or even just a guess--don't worry about the testing bit if that scares you).

 

[Garnett]

We can only understand chance only against a background of order. To say something happened by chance is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected. But expectation is impossible without order. If you take away order and speak of chance alone as a kind of ultimate source, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of chance at all. Instead of thinking of chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order against a random and purposeless background of chance. That is incredible. Therefore it is reasonable to affirm the third premise, not chance.

Unmitigated bilge.

"We can only understand chance only against a background of order."

Rubbish. Back this statement up with evidence. This is a glib little phrase that you believe because it's glib enough to sound believable. It has no logical basis. Chance is a mathematical concept. You bandy words like "chance" and "order" like they prove your case "ipso facto". They do not. Your statement has no meaning.

"To say something happened by chance is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected."

Again, rubbish. The phrase "by chance" is often used as a indication of an event occurring against the odds. The less likely of all possible outcomes. If I roll a die twice and get the same number twice it could be said to have happened "by chance". You may say you didn't expect it. I would say it was unlikely but by no means outside the boundaries of expected outcomes.

"But expectation is impossible without order."

Rubbish. I roll that die again. It comes up 6. It does not spontaneously transmute into a bowl of petunias. I didn't expect it would because my expectations are based on previous observations which have by and largely been codified in a series of physical laws and scientific theories. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]As Richard Feynman (1918-88), who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1965 for his work of quantum electrodynamics, often pointed out, scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degree of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. I'm fairly certain the die won't turn into flowers. Order is not the same as observation-based theory.[/FONT]

"If you take away order and speak of chance alone as a kind of ultimate source, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of chance at all."

Rubbish. "Chance" as you appear to have decided to define it can be seen in the context of a series of theories based on a sliding scale of certainty.

Instead of thinking of chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order against a random and purposeless background of chance.

Not so. Everything should been seen in the context of the theories I previously mentioned.

"That is incredible."

Outburst or literal meaning. If literal, no, it is not unbvelievable. Belief has nothing to do with it. You're thinking of religion. Scientific method does not require belief.

"Therefore it is reasonable to affirm the third premise, not chance."

No. For all the above reasons your logic is flawed.

This brings me to your original proposal:

"Here you go, have a ball:

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is, the way they exist and coexist display and intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end i.e. the organs in the body work for our life and health.

2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or intelligent design.

3. Not chance.

4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.

5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.

6. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer."

I have no problems with your steps 1, the link between 3 and 4, 5 and 6, and your logic would be fine were it not for the link between steps 2 and 3.

"3. Not chance"

No logical, observational, or metaphysical basis.

If random conditions had failed to produce the correct enviroment for us to have come about, you would not be around to argue for ID. Do you understand my argument? Your belief in ID is like me saying "There must be intelligent design. Else how could the Thames flow so perfectly under all the bridges in London."

Mathematically improbable is not the same as mathematically impossible. It is not impossible to win the lottery, yet if a winner reflects and surmises that, with odds of him winning at 1 in a few tens of millions some higher power must have been at work, can you not see the kink in the logic?

Given enough typewriters, an infinite number of monkeys will come up with something more ridiculous than the theory and arguments for ID.

Having seen the "scientists" backing ID all I see is a handful of snake-oil merchants pandering to the creationist niche market and getting far more press attention than they would have done otherwise.

 

[Phred]

What do you mean by a scientific definition of ID?

The claim is made that ID is a scientific theory. If so ID is explaining a phenomenon. What phenomenon is ID explaining, how does it happen and what predictions can it make about what we should see if it's true.

For example, Gravity is a phenomenon that we see all around us... things fall. The Theory of Gravity attempts to explain HOW things fall and what we can expect to see if this theory is correct. We can TEST it. (and BTW... we know much less about how gravity works than evolution.)

What does the scientific theory of intelligent design explain? What does it predict? How does it suggest these things took place? How do we test it?

 

[MQTA]

The claim is made that ID is a scientific theory. If so ID is explaining a phenomenon. What phenomenon is ID explaining, how does it happen and what predictions can it make about what we should see if it's true.

For example, Gravity is a phenomenon that we see all around us... things fall. The Theory of Gravity attempts to explain HOW things fall and what we can expect to see if this theory is correct. We can TEST it. (and BTW... we know much less about how gravity works than evolution.)

What does the scientific theory of intelligent design explain? What does it predict? How does it suggest these things took place? How do we test it?

The proof would be in the pudding? What does that expression really mean anyway? LOL

The Raelian idea seems to be that once WE, ourselves, start to master cloning, stem cells and other medical and biological strides, and start creating life from playing with and understanding DNA, then we'll know. So I guess the prediction is that we will do these things some day, and that would show we're just getting the same idea they had, which they had found out after they started playing with us that that was how they were created, and their creators before them, etc, etc. That's their story, the way I read it.

They don't make claim to the earth planet, sun or solar system, or galaxy or anything else, only the life that is and has been here on this planet.

I don't know what the claim would be coming from the creationist ID ideas. I've been spitting back what I think I just read from these guys. I don't subscribe to it myself (just to be clear), just responding with how I think they're saying ID is.

I think it's at least more interesting than the other explanations.

Better than trumpets in the sky flying in horses or something. I read that "trumpets" in the texts are talking about what we call Speakers. The trumpets in revelation are speakers with voice. The ones in Joshua were emitting sonic waves that would crumble walls.

True or not, that's a pretty wild idea, isn't it? Would be an awesome TZ epic, no? LOL

I still hear Bug Bunny's voice munching a carrot saying "Eh? Could be." and then laughing. What a story they tell.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Alright, define intelligence and give us a way to measure it. If it is so obvious this should be an easy and unrefutable task.

The first premise I provided said "the universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility" This would be defined by:

Intelligible:

1. Understandable; comprehensible; knowable; meaningful;
2. Orderly; logical; coherent; rational;
3. Communicable; expressible;
4. Having unity of principle; capable of complete rational explanation or understanding; capable of causal explanation;
5. Clear to natural or pure reason; apprehensible by the intellect (q.v.) only as against apprehensible through the senses; conceptual as against perceptual; conceptually describable or explainable;
6. Capable of being known synoptically or as it is in itself or in essence; capable of being known through itself as against by agency of something else; graspable by in tuition, self-explanatory;
7. Capable of being appreciated or sympathized with;
8. Super-sensible; of the nature of mind, reason, or their higher powers

http://www.ditext.com/runes/i.html

Therefore the intelligence, being invisible, can be measured by it's intelligible displays.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

The claim is made that ID is a scientific theory. If so ID is explaining a phenomenon. What phenomenon is ID explaining, how does it happen and what predictions can it make about what we should see if it's true.

For example, Gravity is a phenomenon that we see all around us... things fall. The Theory of Gravity attempts to explain HOW things fall and what we can expect to see if this theory is correct. We can TEST it. (and BTW... we know much less about how gravity works than evolution.)

What does the scientific theory of intelligent design explain? What does it predict? How does it suggest these things took place? How do we test it?

With gravity, everything falls...all the time. With Intelligent Design, everything has an order and regularity...all the time. With evolution, species evolve into new species...none of the time.

 

[LogicChristian]

With Intelligent Design, everything has an order and regularity...all the time.

That was poofed into existance without mechanism, it merely had to be thought up, right?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

That was poofed into existance without mechanism, it merely had to be thought up, right?

You have to admit that ID's logic is sound up to that point right?

 

[LogicChristian]

You have to admit that ID's logic is sound up to that point right?

Not at all. The entire "logic" of ID rests on the fact that it doesn't really describe anything in detail. It just says "things are complex, and the only way complexity can come about is through intelligence" which the example of a snowflake can just as easily disprove. ID doesn't explain how something was actually created or developed, just that there was a creator, and that's all you need to know.

The lack of a mechanism is just one of the many fundamental problems with the logic of ID.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Not at all. The entire "logic" of ID rests on the fact that it doesn't really describe anything in detail. It just says "things are complex, and the only way complexity can come about is through intelligence" which the example of a snowflake can just as easily disprove.

Even the snowflake proves ID

 

[Edx]

Even the snowflake proves ID

What will the argument be for that? Snowflakes cannot be created through natural process'?

Nice one showing how much nonsence ID is.

 

[Erock83]

What will the argument be for that? Snowflakes cannot be created through natural process'?

Nice one showing how much nonsence ID is.

Natural – being specific to a system of nature
Not that I don’t think the above argument is not only with out warrant or impact and highly illogical but I was under the perception that the water cycle was kind of a part of nature.
One Love

 

[Edx]

Natural – being specific to a system of nature
Not that I don’t think the above argument is not only with out warrant or impact and highly illogical but I was under the perception that the water cycle was kind of a part of nature.

Erock I dont think I understand what you mean.

My point was that ID is an argument from incredulity, in that if we cannot explain 100% how some complex biological system (like the bacterial flagellem) evolved, that means it is intelligently designed. Thats all IC is.

So saying a snowflake proves ID just shows that even if we know how a snowflake (or said biological structure) is formed, it still doesnt matter (since we do understand how snowflakes are formed). He just pointed out just how unfalsifiable ID is.


Ed

 

[LogicChristian]

Even the snowflake proves ID

So the way you get a new, different, and complex design every time is an example of intelligent design? Tell me, does the designer design each and every snowflake personally as the water freezes?