The primary flaw in intelligent design

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

This is what I've been saying all along, but I've yet to have a creationist even counter me on the issue. Creation "science" is entirely based on a false-dilema, with no actual empiracle evidence to back up these claims of an "intelligent designer".

I encourage every person, creationist or otherwise, to watch this video and actually, seriously, consider the logic. This, right here, is why I get frustrated by people arguing that creationism and evolution are on equal grounds, as valid as the other.

YouTube - The Logic Fallacy of Intelligent Design and Creationism

Gandalf_The_Grey Reviewed by Gandalf_The_Grey on 11-06-2007. The primary flaw in intelligent design This is what I've been saying all along, but I've yet to have a creationist even counter me on the issue. Creation "science" is entirely based on a false-dilema, with no actual empiracle evidence to back up these claims of an "intelligent designer". I encourage every person, creationist or otherwise, to watch this video and actually, seriously, consider the logic. This, right here, is why I get frustrated by people arguing that creationism and evolution are on equal grounds, as valid as the Rating: 5

[Hardcore Newbie]

exactly. we can't subscribe to ID beyond "We might have been made" without just making things up.

[burnable]

good stuff. most of the time when people argue this, they've convinced themselves of the conclusion before gathering the info. wanting to believe something is an enemy to logic, science, intellect, and everything that will produce a stable and truth-seeking mind.

I don't think evolution and creationism have to conflict. After studying a natural phenomenon exhaustively, Einstein tended to deduce that there was an ineffable and mystical intelligence behind it, but that didn't mean he was ready to say "all hail God of Abraham, thy hand worketh in all things." People are too quick to do that, to satisfy their minds with an exoteric and explicit conclusion. Do they really think the complexities of life are a representation of a fluorescent guy sitting on a golden throne in heaven? If he was there, do you think he would have expected us to use our god-given, viable intellects to come to such a ludicrous conclusion?

The smartest people who've ever lived, after profound studies and mind-blowing realizations, often reach the conclusion that there is much more to what they've found, and that they simply do not have the capacity to comprehend it. Why do religious zealots think that they know the answers doing infinitely less, often no more than praying and subscribing to a special feeling in the heart, often comparable to the emotions that prevail during a romance movie?

The difference between a romance movie and a religious doctrine is that the movie didn't have thousands of years of culture and often many preceding generations of believers telling you it's factual. It's too easy to believe when there is that much support for it, even if it tortures your capacity to reason. I'm just glad there are those of us in the world who respond to what intellect, nature, and practical science have to say. Wouldn't 'god' want us to have allegiance to those things rather than popular opinion? WWJD?

[dragonrider]

This is great. It's an idea I have kind of been circling for awhile without a good way to state it succinctly. Thanks.

[yokinazu]

i studied creationism in school. in the only class where it should be taught: mythology.

[jdmarcus59]

This is what I've been saying all along, but I've yet to have a creationist even counter me on the issue. Creation "science" is entirely based on a false-dilema, with no actual empiracle evidence to back up these claims of an "intelligent designer".

I encourage every person, creationist or otherwise, to watch this video and actually, seriously, consider the logic. This, right here, is why I get frustrated by people arguing that creationism and evolution are on equal grounds, as valid as the other.

YouTube - The Logic Fallacy of Intelligent Design and Creationism

it holds no water

[Hardcore Newbie]

it holds no water

How does it not hold water? Stating something doesn't make it true.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

How does it not hold water? Stating something doesn't make it true.

But believing it does!

[Mr. Clandestine]

I don't think he was meaning to insult the maker of this video, as much as he was simply pointing out that everything found in this video could be applied to the illogical fallacies in evolutionists theories. The video maker is completely entitled to his opinions, and he's right about one thing: creationists can't prove him wrong without resorting to religious texts of their own personal belief system. But, when you go and make a statement that "an evolutionist doesn't need address a creationists arguments directly, they need only point out that they consider these arguments to be illogical..." you instantly lose much credibility, and just come off as being obstinate.

It's just as logical (or illogical) for one to assume that they were created by an intelligent designer as it is to assume - and without empirical proof - that this beautiful world, with all of its many complexities, was designed by random chance and brought forth by an enormous galactic explosion which was generated from nothingness. Both seem to be fallible propositions, and both could be entirely wrong for all we know. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster DID create everything we see and know. And I'm sure that those who faithfully & respectfully adhered to this theory will one day be welcomed into Meatball Heaven with open noodles! But there's no reason to openly bash another persons beliefs just because you believe them to be wrong. You can civilly debate against your opposition, but we all know that these debates rarely remain civil for very long...and this applies to both sides of the debate.

Think about it...I could practically re-make this entire video, replace "creationist" with "evolutionist", and get the same response from creationists that this video is getting from evolutionists. That doesn't make it any more "logically infallible", quite the opposite actually, it makes it equally as unfeasible for all the same reasons.

[dragonrider]

No, the video would not work if you switched the two arguments.

Evolution is a theory built on observation of the natural world and a logical explanation for what is observed. Creationism/ID is not. The strength of creationism/ID arguments is primarily that evolutionary theory does not FULLY explain all of the observed phenomena. Creationism/ID arguments work by poking holes in evolutionary theory and then filling those holes with God or an "intelligent designer." So creationism/ID does not stand on its own merits, it relies on the weakness of evolutionary theory.

As the video points out, that line of reasoning is a logical fallacy. A hole in one theory does not translate into greater weight for an alternative theory. That kind of logical fallacy could be used to support any kind of alternative theory, even those that are patently absurd, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The alternative theory must stand on its own merits.

So the video would not work if you switched the two theories. Evolutionary theory DOES stand on it's own merits --- there are logical arguments based on empirical evidence FOR evolutionary theory, so it does not rely on the same logical fallacy that creationism/ID does. It does not in any way rely on holes in the creationism/ID arguments. In order for creationism/ID to be interchangeable with evolution in the video, creationism/ID would have to also have logical arguments based on empirical evidence FOR its conclusions and not rely on holes in evolutionary theory.

I'm not going to get into the logical arguments and empirical evidence FOR evolutionary theory in this thread, because they are so well covered in other threads. But I will assert that if you go check the arguments in those threads, or better yet, research outside this forum, you will find plenty of empirical evidence for the theory.

And I will also assert that if you search those same threads or search outside this forum, you will not find empirical evidence FOR an intelligent designer. The most you will find are examples of phenomena that supporters of creationism/ID claim are not explained by evolutionary theory, and the claim that those holes in evolutionary theory are evidence in favor of creationism/ID.