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:
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.
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:
- An unintelligent designer (the 'stupid' option above). This is in effect evolution, an unintelligent process.
- An undesigned Intelligent Designer. This is in effect the theological option.
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.
Comment