by hooberus 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Some critics (here) of Intelligent Design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.
Since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, I thought it should be given its own thread.
As "science" it is self refuting since it not a theory and as such has never been peer reviewed. ID is a perfectly good topic of conversation in a theological context but it is not science and never will be, it's proponents are religous crackpots who should put their money where their mouth is and submit an "ID theory" paper for review. Of course that is never going to happen.
Self-refuting....I would have to say yes. It can be argued that humans and animals in general are "Intelligently Designed" because they can adapt to survive. The resiliency and adaptation can be linked to evolution. That word scares a lot of people, but animals in our surroundings evolve everyday with each passing generation. In must cases the next generation more apt to survival. For example, on a small scale, bacteria and viruses. New evolved strands are popping up everyday, mostly because of the over-use of antibiotics, but that's another thread altogether. But the point is, they actively evolve and become more and more resilient. That is the basis of evolution, and that is fact.
As "science" it is self refuting since it not a theory and as such has never been peer reviewed. ID is a perfectly good topic of conversation in a theological context but it is not science and never will be, it's proponents are religous crackpots who should put their money where their mouth is and submit an "ID theory" paper for review. Of course that is never going to happen.
Several ID papers have been subject to peer review for example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv15n3_Protein_Families.pdf There are several journals (edited by P.hD. scientists) that publish peer reviewed ID papers.
Some critics (here) of Intelligent Design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.
The logic of intelligent design goes something like this:
1. All objects of a certain level of complexity must have an intelligent designer.
2. All life on earth is above this threshold level of complexity.
3. Therefore, all life on earth has an intelligent designer.
So far, that seems fine. (Personally, I disagree with points 1 and 2, but internally it's perfectly consistent and logical.)
But what about the Intelligent Designer? In order to be intelligent enough to design such complex entities, he (or she or it or they, but I'll stick with he) must himself be complex, at least as complex as, say, an ant, probably immensely more so. Now if an ant is of such complexity that it requires an intelligent designer, the designer himself being more complex must by the above logic, require a designer of his own. By that reasoning, of course, the designer's designer also requires a designer. And so on.
This sort of infinite recursion is problematic for ID theorists, and most will simply declare their deity of choice to be the First Cause, an exception to this apparently immutable law that complexity requires a designer. It cannot possibly be scientific to postulate an entity, and then declare that it is immune to the laws which required you to postulate it. Therefore, intelligent design theory is internally inconsistent and self-refuting.
QED
That a design needs a designer is not illogical, (if you prove it to me otherwise I'll pay you a dinner at most expensive restaurant) the question is: can design be created without a designer. Neither side should fear investigating possibility of it further without any preconceived idea or a bias. Many times people refer to "nature" as a creative entity. But then in process they attribute nature almost intellectual abilities. What is at stake here is simple, are there forces in nature that though being unintelligent and in a sense blind can create immense complexity of life.
I guess one should stop reading commentaries of commentaries of commentaries and go directly to the original idea.
Let's read what Darwin himself had to say, here is the text of the whole book: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
The logic of intelligent design goes something like this:1. All objects of a certain level of complexity must have an intelligent designer.
2. All life on earth is above this threshold level of complexity.
3. Therefore, all life on earth has an intelligent designer.
So far, that seems fine. (Personally, I disagree with points 1 and 2, but internally it's perfectly consistent and logical.)
But what about the Intelligent Designer? In order to be intelligent enough to design such complex entities, he (or she or it or they, but I'll stick with he) must himself be complex, at least as complex as, say, an ant, probably immensely more so. Now if an ant is of such complexity that it requires an intelligent designer, the designer himself being more complex must by the above logic, require a designer of his own. By that reasoning, of course, the designer's designer also requires a designer. And so on.
This sort of infinite recursion is problematic for ID theorists, and most will simply declare their deity of choice to be the First Cause, an exception to this apparently immutable law that complexity requires a designer. It cannot possibly be scientific to postulate an entity, and then declare that it is immune to the laws which required you to postulate it. Therefore, intelligent design theory is internally inconsistent and self-refuting.
The problem with the above is that it overlooks the point that we are dealing with the issue of the origin of these objects, thus we are dealing with objects that have an origin in time. Therefore, (to use the same wording) a Biblical creationist may clarify with some thing like:
1. All objects which have an origin and a certain level of complexity must have an intelligent designer.
2. All life on earth has an origin and is above this threshold level of complexity.
3. Therefore, all life on earth has an intelligent designer.
Since (according to the Bible) God is eternal (ie: no origin), he would not fall under the above "complexity law." Therfore, there is no requirement (based on the above logic) for God to have required an intelligent designer.
1. All objects (which have an origin) and a certain level of complexity must have an intelligent designer.
This is quite a clever trick. By creating a new category of object for your designer, you can circumvent the requirement for a meta-designer. However, now you're not only postulating an entity not known to exist but you're postulating a type of entity not known to exist. While you've sealed up the logical flaw in the argument so that it is now internally consistent, it still does not come close to qualifying as a scientific argument.
Let me explain:
You claim that all complex objects (that have an origin) must have a designer. This is actually unfounded as the only objects we know for sure to have been designed, have been designed by humans. The purpose of ID is to prove that all complex objects must have a designer. You start with that conclusion as a premise, making a circular argument.
While we really don't know whether all complex things must have a designer, one thing we do know is that all objects in the known universe do have an origin. Every single one of them. You're postulating an exception to that rule for no other reason except that your argument would necessarily fail if you did not.
So you're taking your preferred conclusion as a premise, and using a loophole that requires you to postulate a new category of object, just to make it self-consistent. And you still have no evidence. The argument is fatally flawed. You can prop it up with tricks like the above, but you can't make it float.
Yes and no. On a surface level, it is an axiom. However, the axiom has no connection to reality. When fully explored, the argument is indeed unsound and circular. Pure sophistry. The editors of the relevant journals Nature and Science claim they don't even receive submissions on ID articles.
For the theory to be scientific you would have to be able to prove there is a designer and then from that accepted and testable premise connect it with the claim. Optionally, one could prove that something was designed. That is very different than proving that something is ordered and complex. Indeed, the linguistic assertion of "design" invalidates the argument from the get-go as an error of analogy prima facie.
This is quite a clever trick. By creating a new category of object for your designer, you can circumvent the requirement for a meta-designer.
There is no "trick" involved:
However, now you're not only postulating an entity not known to exist but you're postulating a type of entity not known to exist.
This thread is not over the existence of God, but rather whether or not it is "self-refuting" to postulate an intelligent designer (or the requirement for one) from observed complexity.
While you've sealed up the logical flaw in the argument so that it is now internally consistent,
I'm glad that you at least admit that the ID argument is capable of being "internally consistent" - thus not necessarily "self-refuting."
it still does not come close to qualifying as a scientific argument.Let me explain:
You claim that all complex objects (that have an origin) must have a designer. This is actually unfounded as the only objects we know for sure to have been designed, have been designed by humans. The purpose of ID is to prove that all complex objects must have a designer. You start with that conclusion as a premise, making a circular argument.
When ID proponets may claim that all complex objects (that have an origin) must have a designer (or are evidence of a designer), they do not merely substantiate such a claim by the claim itself, but rather by things such as analogy arguments, probability calculations, etc.
While we really don't know whether all complex things must have a designer, one thing we do know is that all objects in the known universe do have an origin. Every single one of them. You're postulating an exception to that rule for no other reason except that your argument would necessarily fail if you did not.
The claim that God has no origin is not being made "for no other reason except that" my "argument would necessarily fail" if I did not claim it, but instead is based on the fact that this is what the Bible and theology have taught for centuries.
So you're taking your preferred conclusion as a premise, and using a loophole that requires you to postulate a new category of object, just to make it self-consistent.
Once again I am not postulating "a new category of object, just to make it self-consistent.", but instead am pointing out how it is not necessarily "self-refuting" to postulate intelligent design (or required intelligent design) for complex objects such as life.
