Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

[prayerrider]

A syllogism must have three categorical terms. Yours only has two, since “designer” is subsumed in the definition of God.
As far as the book, read it or don’t. Your choice. No one is obligated to provide Cliff’s Notes about it.

 

[Wesrock]

As previously stated, I’m not a fan of the ID argument. In some frameworks, it results in special pleading. In others, at best it’s very weak (though not self-defeating).

Still, to play at IDer’s Advocate, I feel like @rossum is supposing that a designer/intelligence in general must be complex. I feel like you’re playing around with terms (not maliciously) in your first post such that you’re assuming human beings are “complex” but for the wrong reason.

 

[prayerrider]

This is what happens when those without formal training in Christian theology try to debate… Christian theology. It’s like making assumptions about a book one hasn’t read.

 

[Neithan]

I appreciate your posts, rossum. Some of them have really made me pause and think about my Catholic faith and its claims. That’s what I come here to do.

I don’t think ID is really popular among Catholics as much as Protestants (in my experience) but insofar as I agree with the argument that intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence I can’t call myself a Darwinist — and I don’t see any plausible way around that but to perhaps, as Buddhists do, see material reality as pure phenomena or deny the ontological root of my own intelligence as an individual thing that began to exist.

I would alter the premises of your argument though: that intelligence which begins to exist must have an intelligent source; but then I’m conflating ID with cosmology, which is more philosophy than natural science.

 

[prayerrider]

Regardless of their intent, posts by non-Catholics of all kinds here often do ultimately have the effect of strengthening my Catholic faith. The truth of Catholic Christian theology stands out in high relief against the background like a still–standing cross in the nave of a burned cathedral.

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

 

[rossum]

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.

Which requires that the Designer is one of those “objects in the universe”. The original point of ID was a legal end-run round the Edwards v Aguillard decision. Hence the exclusion of any and all theology from the initial version of ID. A theological designer would wreck the entire ID scheme.

 

[rossum]

A syllogism must have three categorical terms. Yours only has two, since “designer” is subsumed in the definition of God.

Frank Lloyd Wright was not God, yet he was a designer. A designer does not have to be a god. The set of designers contains more then one element. In my OP I referenced human design.

If you see problems with my syllogism then I suggest you read Professor Augros’ book and tell me if I correctly summarised his argument.

As I pointed out in my OP, an undesigned designer, such as God, falsifies the primary ID premise. It was the second of the two options I proposed for avoiding an infinite regress of meta-designers.

 

[rossum]

that you’re assuming human beings are “complex”

Not quite me assuming; ID advocates insist that humans are complex and hence require design. ID allows simple things to arise naturally in the absence of design. In ID terms humans are complex.

 

[rossum]

I appreciate your posts, rossum. Some of them have really made me pause and think about my Catholic faith and its claims. That’s what I come here to do.

Thankyou.

I don’t think ID is really popular among Catholics as much as Protestants (in my experience)

That is my impression also. The majority of ID proponents appear to be American Protestants.

but insofar as I agree with the argument that intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence I can’t call myself a Darwinist — and I don’t see any plausible way around that but to perhaps, as Buddhists do, see material reality as pure phenomena or deny the ontological root of my own intelligence as an individual thing that began to exist.

As a Buddhist I deny all essentialism. Everything in the world arises from conditions. When the appropriate conditions are present then intelligence arises. As a scientist I observe different levels of intelligence. An earthworm is less intelligent than a beetle, which is less intelligent than a fish and so forth through lizard, mouse, cat, dog, monkey, chimpanzee, proto-human and human. Where there is a gradual scale it is possible for evolution to bridge all the gaps on the scale.

I would alter the premises of your argument though: that intelligence which begins to exist must have an intelligent source; but then I’m conflating ID with cosmology, which is more philosophy than natural science.

I disagree. Intelligence is an emergent property. It is present in the final result, but is not present in any of the (name removed by moderator)uts. Hydrogen is not water. Oxygen is not water. Yet the combination of the two, neither of which is water, results in water. Similarly for intelligence. A sperm is not intelligent. An egg is not intelligent. The various molecules of food used to feed the growing embryo are not intelligent. Yet at the end of the process, with no intelligent (name removed by moderator)uts, we get a dog, which has a level of intelligence.

 

[Neithan]

Intelligence is an emergent property. It is present in the final result, but is not present in any of the (name removed by moderator)uts. Hydrogen is not water. Oxygen is not water. Yet the combination of the two, neither of which is water, results in water. Similarly for intelligence. A sperm is not intelligent. An egg is not intelligent. The various molecules of food used to feed the growing embryo are not intelligent. Yet at the end of the process, with no intelligent (name removed by moderator)uts, we get a dog, which has a level of intelligence.

How do you define intelligence, if there is no essential quality?

 

[prayerrider]

Divine intelligence in action is the Word. “All things were made by Him: and without Him was made nothing that was made.” (John 1: 3)

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

that you’re assuming human beings are “complex”

Not quite me assuming; ID advocates insist that humans are complex and hence require design. ID allows simple things to arise naturally in the absence of design. In ID terms humans are complex.

Yes, but complex in what way? ID is a very mechanical approach, which is part of why I don’t favor it, but a human brain is a complex organ/system with billions of neurons and connections operating harmoniously. Same for the rest of the body. It’s not simply “human beings are intelligent ergo they are complex.”

 

[niceatheist]

Generally speaking those that insist on a first cause are firmly nested in Aristotlean thought. If you don’t buy into Aristotlean metaphysics, then you and your theistic interlocutor are at an impasse.

 

[chessnerd321]

I think the issue you raise is actually a misconception of what ID proponents mean when they say complex. Complex doesn’t mean difficult to understand, or involved. It means composed of smaller, more simple parts. The intelligent designer could he nonphysical, an essence which isn’t composed of anything.

It takes intelligence to glue parts A-Z together to make them work. It doesn’t take intelligence to make a thing which simply is and always has been.

 

[prayerrider]

Even the first cause can’t know that it’s the first cause.

Sure He can–because He’s God. And God is omniscient.

 

[prayerrider]

How do you not know?

 

[prayerrider]

The usual skeptic mumbo jumbo. If you want to know the Catholic / Christian understanding of God, it’s easy enough to find. I understand, and I know. 'Nuff said.

 

[niceatheist]

Well, here’s the problem. ID has yet to provide anything like a prediction. In science, determining design can actually be pretty tricky.

 

[prayerrider]

I have no time for sophistry. But I pray you find what you’re truly seeking here.

 

[LionHeart]

If you met a being who claimed to know everything, how could you be certain that they actually do know everything?

So easy to do it. Ask them about an event which has not happened yet. When they assert that event “X” or action “X” will happen - performed by you, use your free will and do something else, thereby invalidating the claim of omniscience. Even if the entity is assumed to be outside of time, and allegedly knows what is future for us, this simple experiment will invalidate the “omniscience”.

There are two impossible things (at the bare minimum, there are others, too), one is to change the past, the other one is to know the future. They are both impossible because they both lead to a logical contradiction.