Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rossum

Guest
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 natural processes.

Does human intelligence require design? Every ID proponent I have seen insists that humans are designed, they are not caused by either necessity or chance. So, for this piece 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. Again, 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. We have also the requirement that intelligence at that level requires design. Hence, the Intelligent Designer itself requires design to give the required level of intelligence. This requires a meta-designer to design the designer.

A meta-designer is not a problem for ID. Humans are themselves 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 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 meta3-designer, a meta4-designer etc. for an infinite regress of intelligent meta-designers.

How to break this infinite regress? I can see two possible options:
  1. A non-intelligent 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. God is intelligent and not designed.
The first option contradicts the basic premise of ID, stated in the first paragraph: specified complex human level intelligence can arise through evolution without requiring intelligent design.

The second option also contradicts the basic premise of ID, stated in the first paragraph: specified complex intelligence, superior to human intelligence, has arisen without requiring design.

Both solutions to the problem of an infinite regress of meta-designers show that the basic premise of ID is false. Specified complex intelligence can appear without being intelligently designed.

The Intelligent Design proposal is self-refuting. It contains the seeds of its own destruction.
 
I am not a fan of Intelligent Design (as the name of a specific theory/argument, which is different than supposing that the natural order around us requires an intelligence). The argument does not have the strength its proponents claim it does, and I don’t like its portrayal of reality.

Still, ID would not be self-defeating exactly (though it’d still be weak) in a classical theist framework, as the proposed intelligent designer has no complexity at all. There are no parts, no movement, no system, no composition. Contrast that to a human brain which is compositionally and mechanically complex.

Now, a lot of IDers (not necessarily Catholic) are not classical theists, but are often theistic personalists. I’ll not try to argue for them.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
The second option also contradicts the basic premise of ID, stated in the first paragraph: specified complex intelligence, superior to human intelligence, has arisen without requiring design.
Click to expand...
I’m not gonna say that I’m a proponent of ID, but I just wanted to chime in. Your argument falls apart at this point, because you’ve started with an incorrect premise. ID would assert that created things that are complex require a designer.

God’s not created, and therefore, your point #2 doesn’t smash the premises of ID. 😉
 
Gorgias said:
ID would assert that created things that are complex require a designer
Click to expand...
I hardly think so — that would be an argument that starts with a creator in order to prove the existence of a creator. ID enthusiasts try to suggest that they are not starting with a creator, but producing a creator at the end of a scientific investigation.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
I’m not gonna say that I’m a proponent of ID, but I just wanted to chime in. Your argument falls apart at this point, because you’ve started with an incorrect premise. ID would assert that created things that are complex require a designer.

God’s not created, and therefore, your point #2 doesn’t smash the premises of ID.
Click to expand...
In its original form ID was intended to replace “Creation Science” in American public schools. Hence, in its original form, it strictly avoided theologically loaded words like “created”.

Since then, I agree, that ID has dropped much of its pretence to science and has become much more explicitly theological. In either version there is at least one complex, undesigned intelligent entity. That makes ID’s initial assertion much more difficult to sustain. If there is one exception, there may be others. Is Vishnu designed for instance?
 
ELCore said:
Read this book: Who Designed the Designer? A Rediscovered Path to God’s Existence. It specifically addresses your claims about intelligence and shows why they are mistaken.

All requests to explain the argument of the book here will be cheerfully ignored. Read the book.
Click to expand...
All requests to read the book here will be cheerfully ignored unless and until the sum of $15.26 is provided. In that case I will read the book.

I suspect that the argument will run something like:
  • God is the designer.
  • God is not designed.
  • Therefore the designer is not designed.
Am I right?
 
rossum said:
  • God is the designer.
  • God is not designed.
  • Therefore the designer is not designed.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the book yet, but I can say that this syllogism is fundamentally flawed as the conclusion is a non sequitor. One cannot proceed from those two very specific premises to a generalized conclusion about all designers.
Contrariwise if the words “the designer” in the conclusion do refer specifically to God, then the conclusion is simply a restatement of premise two. That would mean there is no logical progression at all–no syllogism.

No highly trained philosopher would advance such a fallacious syllogism. Dr. Michael Augros is a highly trained philosopher. Therefore Dr. Michael Augros would not advance such a fallacious syllogism.
 
Last edited:
Logic is not the strong suit of most atheists. How could it be, since atheism itself is inherently illogical?
 
prayerrider said:
Logic is not the strong suit of most atheists. How could it be, since atheism itself is inherently illogical?
Click to expand...
If that referred to me, then it is not relevant. I am Buddhist, not atheist. There are a lot more gods in my scriptures than in yours.
 
prayerrider said:
I haven’t read the book yet, but I can say that this syllogism is fundamentally flawed as the conclusion is a non sequitor. One cannot proceed from those two very specific premises to a generalized conclusion about all designers.
Click to expand...
I used the definite article: “the designer”. That obviously refers to a single designer. I only applied my conclusion to ID’s proposed Intelligent Designer. If you look at my OP, you will see that I refer to human designers as being designed by the ID designer.

If you prefer I can clarify the syllogism with some capitalization:
  • God is The Designer.
  • God is not designed.
  • Therefore The Designer is not designed.
Remember that this is not my syllogism, it is my very brief summary of what I suspect is in Dr. Augros’ book. If someone has read the book, then I am open to correction.
 
rossum said:
If you prefer I can clarify the syllogism with some capitalization:
  • God is The Designer.
  • God is not designed.
  • Therefore The Designer is not designed.
Click to expand...
Simplified:
A is B.
A is not C.
Therefore B is not C.
Really???!

One can “suspect” such specious reasoning in a book written by man with a PhD in Philosophy all one wants. Such “suspicions” are meaningless to any but the one who holds them. Considering the academic eminence of the author in question, such suspicions are also Illogical.
 
Last edited:
The identity of God, and His “definition” that includes His being uncreated, uncaused, unmoved, etc. aren’t arbitrary to me in the least.
 
rossum said:
If there is one exception, there may be others.
Click to expand...
Only if you do not understand the grounds for the exception. God is a singleton, by definition. No other ‘exceptions’ or members of his class.
Is Vishnu designed for instance?
Click to expand...
From a Catholic perspective? I’d say “yes – Vishnu was dreamed up by humans, so the concept of Vishnu is ‘designed’…”
prayerrider said:
A is B.
A is not C.
Therefore B is not C.
Click to expand...
The problem here isn’t in the logic – which works – but in the truth value of the premises. That’s where this claim stands or falls.
 
prayerrider said:
Simplified:
A is B.
A is not C.
Therefore B is not C.
Really???!
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the English “is” is ambiguous. Restated using more precise mathematical notation the syllogism reads:
  • A = B
  • A ∉ {designed things}
  • Therefore B ∉ {designed things}
Where ∉ = “is not an element of the set”.

I await (name removed by moderator)ut from someone who has actually read the book in question.
 
The syllogism I simplified simply substitutes another name for God–“the Designer.” This is not a categorical term, but simply an alternate appellation with identical (though incomplete) definitional meaning.
If you are saying that reducing God to “designer” is an incomplete and highly flawed understanding of God–I totally agree. That is deism at best, and certainly not Catholic theology–a theology revealed via fides et ratio by God Himself.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
The problem here isn’t in the logic – which works – but in the truth value of the premises. That’s where this claim stands or falls.
Click to expand...
My point is that the truth value of ID’s main premise is false. It is self-refuting, so it has to be false.

ID is not Christianity. Christianity has always posited an undesigned intelligence: God. The issue here is with the logical failure of Intelligent Design as a scientific project. Either it contradicts its own major premise, or it includes an infinite regress.
 
rossum said:
My point is that the truth value of ID’s main premise is false. It is self-refuting, so it has to be false.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Let’s go with your assertion that ID is meant as science. Well, then, science doesn’t truck in assertions about God (at least, science that is true to its grounds). Therefore, the only things we’re talking about are empirically observable – that is, created things. There’s no infinite regress if that’s the the extent of our set.

It does leave open the question of who the designer is, but if it’s only talking about the objects in the universe, then that’s a deliberate (and reasonable) exclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top