Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

ID is Self-refuting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ID is Self-refuting

    The basic premise of Intelligent Design is that certain complex things require design. In particular, things that are specified and complex (as per Dr. Dembski) require design; they cannot arise through unintelligent natural processes.

    Is human intelligence complex enough to require design? Every ID proponent I have seen insists that humans are designed, they are not caused by either necessity or chance. So I will assume that human level or higher intelligence requires design. If this assumption is incorrect, then human intelligence does not require design.

    The designer hypothesized by ID is also intelligent. All ID sources I have seen either say or imply that the designer is at least as intelligent as a human being. This is my second assumption, that the Intelligent Designer has at least human-level intelligence.

    The Intelligent Designer is intelligent, obviously, and is at least as intelligent as a human being. We have also the requirement that intelligence at that level requires design. Hence, the Intelligent Designer itself must itself be designed to possess the required level of intelligence. This necessitates a meta-designer to design the designer.

    A meta-designer is not a problem for ID. Humans are intelligent designers, yet ID claims that humans are themselves designed. That makes ID's Intelligent Designer a meta-designer of human designers.

    The problem comes when we look at the meta-designer. By the above argument, the meta-designer must also be intelligent and hence must itself be either stupid (in human terms) or itself be designed. Setting aside the 'stupid' option for the moment, then we can show that the meta-designer requires a meta-meta-designer. The same argument can then be reapplied to give us a meta^3-designer, a meta^4-designer etc. for an infinite regress of intelligent meta-designers.

    How to break this infinite regress? I can see two possible options:
    1. An unintelligent designer (the 'stupid' option above). This is in effect evolution, an unintelligent process.
    2. An undesigned Intelligent Designer. This is in effect the theological option.
    The first option contradicts the basic premise of ID, stated in the first paragraph, because specified complex human-level intelligence can arise through an unintelligent non-design process, such as evolution, without requiring intelligent design.

    The second option also contradicts the basic premise of ID, stated in the first paragraph, because specified complex supra-human intelligence has arisen without requiring intelligent design. God is eternal, and hence uncaused not designed.

    Both solutions to the problem of an infinite regress of meta-designers show that the basic premise of ID is false. Either way, specified complex intelligence can appear without being intelligently designed. Without either of those solutions, then ID suffers from an infinite regress of meta-designers, which is a logical impossibility.

    The Intelligent Design proposal is self-refuting. It contains the seeds of its own destruction.

  • #2
    Originally posted by rossum View Post
    The basic premise of Intelligent Design is that certain complex things require design.
    Certain complex things within nature require design. We are not speaking of complex supernatural beings requiring design.

    Blessings,
    Lee

    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Certain complex things within nature require design. We are not speaking of complex supernatural beings requiring design.
      Is intelligence "within nature"? If yes, then your Intelligent Designer is also within nature and so, on your own admission, requires design.

      If intelligence is not within nature then human intelligence is part of our spiritual/supernatural component and so does not require design. Are you telling us that human intelligence was not designed, but developed some other way?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rossum View Post

        Is intelligence "within nature"? If yes, then your Intelligent Designer is also within nature and so, on your own admission, requires design.

        If intelligence is not within nature then human intelligence is part of our spiritual/supernatural component and so does not require design. Are you telling us that human intelligence was not designed, but developed some other way?
        I believe human intelligence is within nature, and is thus designed. But a Designer outside of nature (and thus supernatural) would not be required to be designed.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rossum View Post

          Is intelligence "within nature"? If yes, then your Intelligent Designer is also within nature and so, on your own admission, requires design.

          If intelligence is not within nature then human intelligence is part of our spiritual/supernatural component and so does not require design. Are you telling us that human intelligence was not designed, but developed some other way?
          the third option is that the Creator is not part of creation and has an intelligence (or is the source of all knowledge and wisdom) which he imparts as an ability within our human minds. The supposed contradictions you present occur within our created realm. We can only make feeble guesses about the form of existence of our God, our Creator -- at least when trying to guess about His existence beyond what has been revealed to us in scriptures. He is outside of creation but also can participate within it at will. When you try to ascribe created elements to the creature, you are only able to speak from within the realm of creation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            I believe human intelligence is within nature, and is thus designed. But a Designer outside of nature (and thus supernatural) would not be required to be designed.
            You are equivocating here. Intelligence is both designed and not designed. If there is an undesigned intelligence, then intelligence does not require any Complex Specified Information, as per Dr. Dembski. If intelligence does not require CSI, then neither does human intelligence.

            Alternatively, you have two forms of intelligence here. In order to accept that you will need to show some scientific evidence that there are indeed two forms of intelligence. Do you have any such evidence? Your personal belief is obviously not sufficient evidence.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              The third option is that the Creator is not part of creation and has an intelligence (or is the source of all knowledge and wisdom) which he imparts as an ability within our human minds.
              This is not a third option, it is my second option: the theological option. There is an intelligent uncaused God with uncaused, undesigned intelligence. The existence of such an entity with human level intelligence (or more) refutes the ID claim that complex specified things must be designed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rossum View Post

                This is not a third option, it is my second option: the theological option. There is an intelligent uncaused God with uncaused, undesigned intelligence. The existence of such an entity with human level intelligence (or more) refutes the ID claim that complex specified things must be designed.
                You don't make any sense here when you try to put God into descriptions that only apply to creation. You are making a false limitation. Maybe you can explain yourself a bit further here. Maybe you can look beyond your the created universe in order to examine how God, as not created, is not subject to the restrictions you place on Him.

                Or maybe you can come up with some concept that we could all agree upon as a premise for the discussion.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rossum View Post
                  You are equivocating here. Intelligence is both designed and not designed.
                  Well, just like power can be granted or inherent.

                  Alternatively, you have two forms of intelligence here. In order to accept that you will need to show some scientific evidence that there are indeed two forms of intelligence. Do you have any such evidence? Your personal belief is obviously not sufficient evidence.
                  I think it's evident to anyone that power can be granted or inherent. Similarly, intelligence can be granted to us, or inherent in God.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                    You don't make any sense here when you try to put God into descriptions that only apply to creation.
                    So a description like "intelligent" does not apply to God? A description like "exists" does not apply to God? A description like "living" does not apply to God?

                    Every single word in the dictionary applies to creation. That includes every single word in the Bible. You have just rendered the Bible useless as a description of God.

                    You are making a false limitation. Maybe you can explain yourself a bit further here. Maybe you can look beyond your the created universe in order to examine how God, as not created, is not subject to the restrictions you place on Him.
                    For a philosophical discussion I define the universe as All That Exists (ATE). Any god. angel, devil etc. that exists is part of the ATE universe. The material STEM universe of science is included in the ATE universe, but the ATE universe includes all existing supernatural entities as well. For example, if Vishnu exists, then Vishnu is part of the ATE universe.

                    Similarly, if the Abrahamic God exists, then He is also part of the ATE universe.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Well, just like power can be granted or inherent.
                      Thank you for agreeing with my point. An "inherent" intelligence is not designed, thus showing that the ID hypothesis is incorrect. An inherent intelligence is my second option in the OP, the theological option.

                      I think it's evident to anyone that power can be granted or inherent. Similarly, intelligence can be granted to us, or inherent in God.
                      As I said, God is a counter-example to ID's claim, thus rendering the claim incorrect. At least one complex specified property exists that was not designed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Certain complex things within nature require design. We are not speaking of complex supernatural beings requiring design.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        False, there are not any falsifiable hypothesis that would determine that complexity of life requires 'design.' In fact the reverse has been determined. The complexity of life has been explained as the result of natural processes by scientific methods and the falsification of hypothesis.

                        All the ID advocates have failed to present any hypothesis that would justify that the complexity of life requires 'design.' All they have done is waisted millions of dollars of gullible devoted Christians.

                        Still waiting for you to present a falsifiable hypothesis that the complexity of life and natural evolution and abiogenesis CANNOT explain the complexity of life. All you have done is present an endless repetitive dishonest convoluted 'Argument from ignorance' that is not science, but based on a religious agenda.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-07-2021, 07:33 AM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rossum View Post
                          An "inherent" intelligence is not designed, thus showing that the ID hypothesis is incorrect.
                          Only if ID applies to the supernatural! But it only applies to nature.

                          Blessings,
                          Lee

                          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Only if ID applies to the supernatural! But it only applies to nature.
                            I am glad to see you confirm that a complex specified system can exist without having been designed.

                            At the very least that requires ID to modify its claims. Currently it does not explicitly state any exception for the supernatural.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rossum View Post
                              I am glad to see you confirm that a complex specified system can exist without having been designed.

                              At the very least that requires ID to modify its claims. Currently it does not explicitly state any exception for the supernatural.
                              Good point, there should be a stated exception for the supernatural.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by TheLurch, 04-13-2021, 02:25 PM
                              7 responses
                              50 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post TheLurch  
                              Started by rogue06, 04-13-2021, 08:52 AM
                              1 response
                              37 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 04-11-2021, 06:59 AM
                              0 responses
                              15 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sparko, 04-09-2021, 07:35 AM
                              4 responses
                              25 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 04-05-2021, 08:45 AM
                              9 responses
                              62 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X