Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[SteveII]

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.

So, leaving aside that this is, obviously, an enormous argument from ignorance, allow me to ask some questions that you probably should have answered in the initial premise: how on earth did you determine that the information was "specified"? Because without that, you're kinda begging the question. Moreover, why do you think information, a post-hot conceptual label placed upon perceived patters by subjective minds, is at all relevant before the patterns have been examined and called information? And given the fact that we already know that biological systems that seem irreducible can be reduced quite effectively via additional steps that arose and faded before investigation was possible, what is the basis for just assuming they're irreducible, and hence falling victim to a second argument from ignorance that comprises the entirety of the objection in irreducible complexity?

Using information theory developed by Claude Shannon, we observe that DNA has the capacity to carry huge amounts of information. As Crick explained in 1958, “By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein...Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein." Further experimentation since has led to specific knowledge of the types of information encoded.

Can you give me a link that supports that we know about the process that could get around irreducible complexity (in spite of the fact that it "arose and faded before investigation was possible")?

Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.

Then a non-special pleading version of this argument would also run that we've never had demonstrated intelligent causes creating life out of nothing, never observed miracles, never observed a god, and you could not come to the conclusion you have. Your premise here relies on baseless special pleading, and can hence be dismissed.

Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, ...

Given the logical and evidentiary flaws in the premises, the conclusion cannot be valid on the basis of the argument you've presented.

Historical scientist use abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) all the time. Isn't that pretty much the what macro evolution is? How is this different?

Done. No need to just dismiss. It's fairly trivial to refute.

I find it interesting that you will dismiss one observation after another, that might have God as an explanation, by saying we have never observed God. Then you use the fact that you never observed God to discount any miracles reported. Then because there have never been any miracles, there is no God. Then you say that God has not been observed and miracles are not possible so the Bible is nonsense. Isn't this circular?