You would also need to steer clear of other logical fallacies that I commonly see in these types of debates, and logical fallacies are at least on topic in the Philosophy forum.
First, the false dichotomy. One can not prove intelligent design by falsifying evolution.
Second, argument from ignorance. This is also called the God-of-the-Gaps. Just because we don't know how something came about does not mean that it is evidence for intelligent design.
Third, argument from incredulity. Just because you can't see how something could evolve does not mean it is designed.
If you could stay away from these major logical fallacies I would be interested in participating.
1. In a micro biological system for example , if non intelligent chemical evolution cannot reasonably and objectively show it was responsible...then what other explanation is there than Intelligence being responsible for it ? Is there a third option that im not aware of then ?
2. Its not 'God of the Gaps' when something can be objectively shown to absolutely require measurable intelligence for an end product, system, or operation to exist and function properly ; its willful ignorance when people refuse to admit to an obviously intelligently designed system based on the implications thereof -- thats what 'scientific-chauvinism' means : A Designers foot must not be allowed thru the door , so, automatically rule out intelligent causes from the get-go. Have you read the amazing admission from an esteemed Evolutionist regarding this ? :
Amazing admission ----
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the worlds leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creationregardless of whether or not the facts support it.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.
Reference
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (
review of
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997),
The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997
________________________________________________________
2.a. Can 'Evolution of the Gaps' explain the existence of the Presidential Faces on Mt. Rushmore since we didnt actually see them being produced (assuming you and I didnt) ? Would your statement of 'Just because you can't see how something could evolve does not mean it is designed' , still stand in this instance ?
3. Why is it 'incredulous' to conclude something was intelligently designed by ruling out blind evolution in accordance to objective scientific standards for what constitutes a design ? Perhaps its only 'incredulous' because of Ones apriori-commitment to Natural Causes when real science is supposed to be taking into account ALL forms of Causes whether intelligent or not. (?) .
Interested in debating then ? If so, review the Guideline Sticky in the Formal Debate Room , then lets set up some ground rules per the Sticky. In closing, if you decide to Debate, i will expect you to show why the examples i give : 1. Dont fall into intelligent design 2. Can be explained thru non intelligent natural processes . Afterall, id hate for you to fall into the 'Evolution of the Gaps' fallacy ! Regards.
