Intelligent design

September 17, 2009 at 13:36 (Web) (, , , , )

Was Just having a chat (they like to refer to them as debates!) about evolution. Surprise, surprise, they did not believe in evolution because they’re religion told them we were all created by a giant sphincter, or some such nonsense. As always someone jumped in with the great argument about Intelligent design. For those that don’t know intelligent design is that argument: yes evolution is true, but guided by the Great sphincter.

And that is the scientific theory they agree with. First of its NOT FUCKING SCIENCE! Science is based on data. Fair enough there are plenty of hypotheses/theories/etc… that might still be lacking in concrete data. But there is no evidence for God/gods/sphincter. So I have written the following below for anyone that just wishes to cover the arguments in case it comes up in a conversation/debate. Takes a few existing ideas/thoughts out there, but this is how I have written them, so credit to all the others who ideas I might of plagiarised

Evolution vs Intelligent Design:

Generally these arguments go something like:
a. X (in this case evolution) is too complex/adaptive/purposeful/beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
b. Therefore, X (evolution) must have been created/done by a intelligent/wise/purposeful being.
c. God is that intelligent/wise/purposeful being.
d. Therefore, God exists.

Now.
Premise A. assumes that you can work out the existence of some sort of intelligence to a design merely by examining an object. This argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is non-sequitur logic (conclusion does not follow from the premise). Life/objects/evolution appears ordered, (this is where the creator argument comes in) so it must have been ordered. In reality, there are examples of systems which are ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes, example snowflakes.

Also regarding the complexity argument. The irreducible complexity argument is used. Which boils down to the following:
Biological systems are too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, or “less complete”, predecessors. This is based on the idea that a structure’s constituent parts would be useless prior to their current state.
The following link disprove this.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/POS6-99ShenksJoplin.html

Another argument against the “complexity” argument, is the poor design argument. If there is a God he’s done a pretty bad job. I refer to pharynx which can cause choking, common malformation of the human spinal column, the pointlessness of the appendix, crowded teeth, etc… in humans.
I would also read up on Pandas. Oh and photosynthetic plants. They reflect green light, even though the sun’s peak output is at this wavelength! If there was intelligence behind the design, they should be able to use the entire solar spectrum. And thus have black leafs.

Regarding point C. The only argument I will make is this.
If A and B are proved true and thus C is correct (there is a god/sentient/creator/etc) then the argument (a., b., c., etc..) would have to be applied to the creator. Which would then need to applied to that creator, etc… which would lead to an infinite amount of creators/gods/designers.

one or 2 other links of interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_Horse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales

Advertisements

1 Comment

  1. Tnelson said,

    Hey, I found your blog in a new directory of blogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, anyway cool blog, I bookmarked you. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: