Argument of Intelligent Design. (Revelation, bible, faith, God)

[kb09]

The other day I was youtubing in response to watching Richard Dawkins debate with Windy Wright on ToE and I happened to stumble upon a series of videos where he talks about his (at that time new) book, The God Delusion.

My point is not to discuss his book, but rather, a creationist argument that is heavily used to support the claim that "goddunit." In the simplest terms, the argument of Intelligent Design (ID) claims that just like complex machinery and such have a maker, that human beings and other lifeforms that are equally or even more so complex have to have a maker also. It states that the chance for life, statistically speaking, is too low for this to have all happened by chance, and that it was a "design" that we came to be from our creator.

Right off the bat, two logical fallacies that slap me in the face are the argument from analogy, and the fallacy of false dilemma. In case you don't know, an argument from analogy is a fallacy because no matter how alike two things might appear, they ultimately, still have their differences - hence the analogy. In this case, we can prove that complex machinery came from humans because there is empirical visual evidence for the fact. The same cannot be said of a creator. It is quite alright to use an analogy to prove a point, but, without other evidence for something outside of the analogy, then the argument falls apart.

Secondly, the fallacy of false dilemma only presents two outcomes to a cause when there are more logical conclusions that can be drawn. In this case it's either: a.) we are all here by chance or b.) we are here by ID and have a maker. The way this argument is set up leads it to a false dilemma because there are plenty more logical conclusions to how we came to be as complex as we are. Evolution. Aliens. The stork. Are all possibilities on how life came to be. It's not as cut and dry nor black and white as some want to make it seem.

But, outside of the logical fallacies ID possess, the biggest logical fault of this argument is one of the key points it is built upon. If we are to assume that ID is indeed true and that complex beings were made by a creator, it is only logical to assume that our creator, would have to be even more complex than ourselves in order to create us.

Since all complex things must have a creator, then the creator that created us must have a creator too, that is more complex than the creator that created us. And the creator that has a creator that created us must also have a creator that created it too. Ad infinitum. Or, as others might say, "turtles all the way down!"

This is an unsustainable model because there has to be a stopping point, or a beginning. If one were to actually sit down and really, really think about the concept of intelligent design, the entire construct collapses upon itself.

My point isn't to convert anyone or anything of the sort, it's more of a call to action to use the facilities we have in order to logically and critically think. Think beyond what someone tells you, critically examine it and find out for yourself if it's a logical conclusion.

[MrBlueSky_]

Originally Posted by kb09

Since all complex things must have a creator, then the creator that created us must have a creator too, that is more complex than the creator that created us. And the creator that has a creator that created us must also have a creator that created it too. Ad infinitum. Or, as others might say, "turtles all the way down!"

Exactly.. and that's when you make up a convenient BS fairytale that says your particular version of the creator is "beyond understanding" and doesn't need a creator or a beginning.

[achickenchaser]

Where is this creator at? Where did he/she/it go? Did something powerful enough to create the universe all of a sudden come down with a severe case of acute shyness? Why would it? One would think it would have a very large ego and an abundance of confidence.

It can't be the free will excuse. It allegedly wrote a physical book for everyone to read, and sent itself in human form for man to see with his own eyes at one point in our history. Was there a cut off date as to when it stopped doing this, or maybe it's the whole acute shyness thing?

It could end the whole ID debate in a heartbeat if it wanted to, but it doesn't. I can't imagine why

It either doesn't exist or it doesn't give a rat's behind about us and has long since moved on to bigger and better things.

[NightBazaar]

As far as I know, there are basically two versions of the concept of intelligent design. One is religious in nature, that the universe and everything in it was created by God, or any number of other gods, depending on your religious view. The other version is that the universe and everything in it is artificial

The second version suggests that some kind of intelligence beyond the universe and beyond all dimensions is running an incredibly computer program somewhat like a Sims program. You might want to call it The Universe. Kind of a weird thought that all it would take to end it all is to flip the switch and it's Game Over.

The thing is that you wouldn't know because you're part of a program and all you know is what else is in the program. If you play a game, and decide to turn it off, do any of the characters know their existence has ended? Of course not. If there's a Save Game feature, then you resume where the game last left off. You'd never know it had been shut off or turned on.
I don't think too many people view that concept seriously, but the point is that you can't actually prove it's wrong. Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to think that's not the case. But you can never know what's beyond because you're restricted by the limits of the program.

Same thing holds true for religious views, which most people are more prone to accept in one way or another. People who believe the universe is the result of divine action usually fall into two categories: The entire universe was created very quickly, or the universe developed very slowly. In either case, the process began as a result of divine action. In many cases, there is a creator that has always existed.

Like the cosmic computer program scenario, you can't prove the universe was not created by divine action. You can only believe it on the basis of faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but belief and faith are not always right. I can believe the center of the Earth is completely hollow, but that might not be right.

Some of the things ID advocates point out to support their view is that there are many things that seem a little too perfect to reach any other conclusion. For example, the Moon is at just the right distance that it perfectly covers the Sun during a total eclipse. The Earth is in just the right location from the Sun that the planet doesn't completely boil or freeze. The temperatures are suitable for us to live. The human body is a design of perfection. And the universe seems to be fine-tuned for us. Divine action is the only conclusion you can come to for all that to happen.

But is it really all that fine-tuned? Unfortunately, it's not. There are far more risks, hazards and mistakes in the universe. It's not perfection. There are flaws in the design.

I came across a YouTube vid featuring astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson who makes a very interesting case showing that the universe isn't as fine-tuned as some might like to think it is. Regardless, it can't rule out divine action, but it does point out there are many imperfections. Some religious extremists would say the imperfections are the results of sin. So why would the universe have been created that allowed the existence of sin in the first place?

If there's any point to be made, it's that no one knows the ultimate origins of the universe, of the world, and of life. At best, all that can be done is guess at possibilities of how and why it all came to be the way it is.

The video is a short version of the lecture, but it makes some thought provoking points.



YouTube - Beyond Belief '06 - Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Peggy Anne]

The tiny humans worry too much. Little pinpoint heads. Going on and on. So full of themselves. Trying to impress one another with the big answer. Perhaps there are millions of answers. Too many for the little humans to ever comprehend, but, bless their little hearts, they keep on trying.

[Somewhat]

without other evidence for something outside of the analogy, then the argument falls apart.

The evidence for the existence of God is in His creation. It's all around you. Just sit down, close your eyes and feel it. Look at the grass, God is making it stand up straight.

I think the question 'Is there a maker or not?' is quite black and white. There either is or there isn't. Where it can get a bit fuzzy, for some, is who/what is that creator. If one wants to truly find the truth that underlies all that is seen and unseen, and does not stop seeking until there is no hint of falseness, then one will find Christ, the only Son of God.

To say that because we are complex like machines and therefore must have an external creator does not imply that that creator must be more complex than us. I would say that such a proposition is quite non sequiter.
I would say that humans who choose to love sin like to think that we are complex. We may be complex on some mechanical level, but really, so are rocks. In the end we are very simple, it is only when we get lost in sin that we think we are complex and something more.

If one is to sit down and really, really think, then anything and everything becomes impossible. This is one of the meaings in the Lord's Word
Mark 10:27 NIV • Read this chapter
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

Love the truth, if something contains a hint of falseness then don't accept any of it, in this way you will be set free.

[Somewhat]

Can you please tell me what the thought provoking point is?

I just don't get it.

[kb09]

Originally Posted by Somewhat

without other evidence for something outside of the analogy, then the argument falls apart.

Yep, that's what argument from analogy is and that's why it falls apart. Two things that are similar are also different. Can't use that as complete evidence for a claim.

Originally Posted by Somewhat

The evidence for the existence of God is in His creation. It's all around you. Just sit down, close your eyes and feel it. Look at the grass, God is making it stand up straight.

Another fallacy: unknowable fact.

You don't know, and cannot prove that God is doing *anything*. All you can and will do is believe.

Originally Posted by Somewhat

I think the question 'Is there a maker or not?' is quite black and white. There either is or there isn't.

Again, unknowable fact and a hint of false dilemma. That statement is unknowable in nature because you cannot either prove nor disprove that their is or is not a creator.

Originally Posted by Somewhat

Where it can get a bit fuzzy, for some, is who/what is that creator. If one wants to truly find the truth that underlies all that is seen and unseen, and does not stop seeking until there is no hint of falseness, then one will find Christ, the only Son of God.

Definitely a false dilemma here. We are only given two outcomes or alternatives when indeed there is many more. I believe that the Pink Unicorn and the Purple Elephant in unison made our beautiful universe in the way that we see it now. I looked deeply within my self and felt without a hint of falseness that this is indeed the one and only truth. Why isn't that included in your list of possible outcomes?

Originally Posted by Somewhat

To say that because we are complex like machines and therefore must have an external creator does not imply that that creator must be more complex than us. I would say that such a proposition is quite non sequiter.

You mean non sequitur, right (sorry, spelling errors bother me to no end)?

I'm just going under the assumption that the ID argument has. All complex things must have a creator, right?

Just as that complex computer was built, a mind more complex had to be there in order to build such a complex thing.

If you apply the same to humans, then the same thing follows. We are complex, so a more complex being had to exist in order to make us as complex as we are. So, the logical conclusion would be that the complex creator that made us complex humans, must have had some even more complex create it. Ad infinitum.

Originally Posted by Somewhat

I would say that humans who choose to love sin like to think that we are complex. We may be complex on some mechanical level, but really, so are rocks. In the end we are very simple, it is only when we get lost in sin that we think we are complex and something more.

If you've ever taken a biology or anatomy and physiology course you'd see that your last statement is an absolute and complete bull. The simple fact that I can type and not have to think about breathing or blinking or supplying my entire body with blood shows that a complex and intricate system is at work.

Originally Posted by Somewhat

If one is to sit down and really, really think, then anything and everything becomes impossible. This is one of the meaings in the Lord's Word
Mark 10:27 NIV • Read this chapter
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

Sorry, you can't use your bible here. I won't allow for circular reasoning. You'll be called out on it every time you try it. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.

Originally Posted by Somewhat

Love the truth, if something contains a hint of falseness then don't accept any of it, in this way you will be set free.

I love the truth and that's why I seek it. I've read your bible and deemed that it is not truth but falsehoods handed down for generations (it was a spoken fable for hundred of years before it was ever written down). If you would actually take the time to logically and objectively reason, you'd most likely come to the same conclusion.

[AREQUIPA]

Good post by the OP but not, I'm afraid by the proponent of argument from grass. We know why it stands up straight and it would do so even if there was no - one to tell it to do so.

Fact is that we have almost no information about how the universe came to be. The argument from first cause is hard to refute - in our experience nothing ever seems to come from nothing, though I believe that the basics of matter - atoms - are pretty much made of nothing.

So it's understandable that just having a huge invisible human to make it all with a magic wave of the invisible hand solves the problem nicely. The question of who made the invisible human can be shelved by saying 'alpha and omega', which really explains nothing.

That first stage having got nowhere really, the invisible human or the nothing from nothing theory has to be de facto demonstrated by evidence. What we have is examined for signs of design by an Intelligence or signs of planning. There again the sheer series of good fortunes which has led to us being here can look very much as though arranged, but then, they all do look like natural accidents. And the evidence of a watchmaker usually turns out to be a mix of dodgy science and wishful thinking.

so stage 2 turns out to be inconclusive.

Stage 3 is to prove the invisible human by personal experience, which falls flat rather because everyone has their own model of invisible human. When one considers them one rather ends up by saying 'well, maybe there is a big invisible human behind it all, maybe it's just lightning and rain - we though it was done by a god until we learned better. But, so what about it?'

So, if we did decide to give credence to a big invisible human, which brand of god do we go with? The one that happens to be popular where you live? The one that is best supported by the evidence? Which one? And if we 'give credence' to some kind of god, so what?

I say 'invisible human' but there's no reason to think that what we have - something big, eternal and invisible that makes the universe - has a beard. It is more like a huge natural force - especially if eternal, in fact rather the force that makes atoms from nothing . Anthromorphing it into a male human is a bit absurd and slightly insulting.

I suppose one could build a large hall and go there to sing 'thank you' songs to it, but to what purpose other than to make ourselves feel good?

In the end the argument isn't about First cause but about organized religion.

[NightBazaar]

Originally Posted by Somewhat

Can you please tell me what the thought provoking point is?

I just don't get it.

I think you missed my point. As I stated, you can't prove there is no God or that the process of the universe is not the result of divine action. It requires faith and belief to conclude that, just as it requires faith and belief to conclude it did not occur because of divine action. Neither point of view is provable outside of faith and belief. But it's no great mystery that faith and belief alone do not always equal reality. Those things can change as new things (faith and belief) are learned and discovered. As I also stated, it isn't why things are as they are, it's what things are.

Many people believe the universe and human beings are so finely tuned that it can only be understood as the result of intelligent design. Well, I'm not saying that it didn't result from divine action. What I'm saying is that the universe and human beings are NOT as "finely tuned" as some might think. So, yes, there are some things that provoke thought concerning the concepts of fine-tuning and the intelligent design of the universe. It doesn't mean there is no God or divinity. It means that the concept of intelligent design, as generally explained, might need some serious revision. The concept is not based on divine revelation. It's solely based on opinion and interpretation by people. And because people are NOT perfect, they too are subject to mistakes and error.

Why is there so much disease and other life-threatening problems in the world? Is it because of intelligent design? Why is it if you don't eat or drink water, you'll die? Is that because of intelligent design? What do you say to young children who are dying from leukemia or other diseases? Do you tell them they're suppose to die because it's just part of intelligent design? When parents give birth to an extremely malformed baby, or one that's still-born, is it because of intelligent design?

My argument isn't whether or not there is a divinity with a master plan to all things. My argument is with people who declare that the universe and human beings are so finely tuned that it can only be explained by intelligent design. These views are not based on divine instruction but rather are based on their own superstitious attempts to explain the nature of divinity. Do they ignore the vast number of flaws and mistakes there are? How finely-tuned is intelligent design if it overlooks all the things that can and do go wrong? The answer seems simple. The universe and human beings are not as finely-tuned as some people may think.