Intelligent Design: Irreducible Complexity?

[Esquilax]

I think that Irreducible Complexity is just a reformed "God of the Gaps" argument. For example, my Religious Studies (yes, I had to take that class) teacher used the Human Eye as "evidence' for I.D.. It was along the lines of:

"Oh! Look at the human eye! It's so complex! It's retina, it's muscles connecting to it, the cornea, etc... It could have only be designed by an Intelligent Designer!"

You might also recognize this as the classic argument from ignorance: "You can't tell me how this could have evolved, and therefore it was designed."

The trouble is that this is all ID is. Intelligent design makes no positive claims, offers no tests, no falsification or hypotheses; all it is, from front to back, is a series of attempts to poke holes in evolution by looking at specific cases, missing the forest for the trees and, in the process, falling victim to yet another fallacy, the "99 percent equals 0 percent" fallacy. In this fallacy, if you cannot present a complete, comprehensive view of your position, if your opponent can find even a single thing for which you don't have an answer, they claim the entire position is therefore wrong, regardless of the rest of the evidence.

Intelligent design arguments not only commit this fallacy, they also commit the reverse version of it, a "1 percent equals 100 percent," if you will, because even if we were to accept the proposition that intelligent design may explain one of the many single cases ID proponents bring up, to then expand that and say that everything was designed is a huge leap they can't possibly support. Evolution wasn't accepted as a theory based on a single case, after all, and yet ID attempts to end run around the entirety of the scientific process to do just that.

For being dressed up as science, ID is the least scientific version of this creation notion.

[SteelCurtain]

I have had this occasion, when I was talking to this theist guy and someone posed the question of "How the designer got there" and the guy said:

<guy>

The Guy:

And what created the Creator? Good question, my friend. The question 'What created the Creator?' has the built-in assumption that the Creator needed to be created. No. Only things bound by the laws of physics necessarily need to be created. Don't make the mistake of trying to apply the limitations of the physical to the metaphysical, my friend.

I hope that this helps you better understand my current argument.

</guy>

This is that special pleading thing that everyone is talking about. Just saying that the Creator doesn't need to be created isn't nearly enough. One has to demonstrate why this has to be so. Also, one has to demonstrate that the same arbitrary logic cannot be applied to the proto-universe. If "guy" gets to define his terms as he wishes, why can't you?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Seriously, your English appears to be to just great. If you hadn't said it wasn't your first language I'd have thought it was automatically based on the above

There can be some falsifications but it depends on the context they're using it in.

For example, as noted, if someone was to say "you/we can't know god's plan", that is a contradiction. It's presuming that you know you can't know something, which doesn't make any sense.

Other than that you could argue Occam's Razor. For example with ID proponents who posit that evolution exists but there is a guided creator. There's no evidence of course to suggest this is true, but neither is there to the contrary. However our understanding of evolution and abiogenesis doesn't need a creator to result in what we have today. IDers tend to insert god at the beginning of the equation (creation) or during it (guiding evolution). But Occam's Razor can take of this because, due to the un-evidenced and thus unknown nature of this creator, the result appears to be the same regardless of whether it was there or not.

Also we need to consider that making an un-falsifiable statement is itself fallacious as it becomes irresolvable. There's no way to test the claim and hence no way to prove its validity. In this instance it comes entirely down to whether you accept something prima facie on faith, or whether you reject it due to its irresolvable nature (which is the standard in the scientific method).

Thanks, I suppose my English ain't that bad.

Actually, your post is soo good, I might use it next time debating theists and creationists! If you don't mind, of course.

P.S.

Of course not There are many on here who are far more knowledgeable than I on this topic so I'd definitely recommend reading through some of the debates where IDers and theists have come through and engaged in conversation.

[OfficerVajardian]

I have had this occasion, when I was talking to this theist guy and someone posed the question of "How the designer got there" and the guy said:

<guy>

The Guy:

And what created the Creator? Good question, my friend. The question 'What created the Creator?' has the built-in assumption that the Creator needed to be created. No. Only things bound by the laws of physics necessarily need to be created. Don't make the mistake of trying to apply the limitations of the physical to the metaphysical, my friend.

I hope that this helps you better understand my current argument.

</guy>

This is that special pleading thing that everyone is talking about. Just saying that the Creator doesn't need to be created isn't nearly enough. One has to demonstrate why this has to be so. Also, one has to demonstrate the the same arbitrary logic cannot be applied to the proto-universe. If "guy" gets to define his terms as he wishes, why can't you?

Very, very true. I hadn't thought of that.

[Brakeman]

If you were a creator of beings, lets say robots, and you made a perfect eye design (hey you're perfect too!) why wouldn't all of your designs have the identical perfect eyes? Evolution says we vary and these variances over time create new things, but "god's" design should be perfect on the spot and stay so. Who needs glasses anyway?

[John V]

I think it's just because humans previously did not understand how the eye works and how it was formed by evolutionary processes and therefore an Intelligent Designer was the reason. But now we DO understand the processes that created the eye and how it functions so therefore there was no reason anymore to wedge an Intelligent Designer in.

Cool, lets hear how the eye developed step by step.

[ignoramus]

The only thing which shows signs of ID is Religion itself.
It's based on a product which cannot be seen or heard or touched! You just have to trust the seller that it exists!
Would you buy this off product off ebay!

Well some one knows how to sell because the Vatican is the worlds largest/richest landlord.
You cannot tell me that there is no ID behind this tax free scheme...

[Esquilax]

I think it's just because humans previously did not understand how the eye works and how it was formed by evolutionary processes and therefore an Intelligent Designer was the reason. But now we DO understand the processes that created the eye and how it functions so therefore there was no reason anymore to wedge an Intelligent Designer in.

Cool, lets hear how the eye developed step by step.

Did you actually think nobody would be able to do that?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Cool, lets hear how the eye developed step by step.

Did you actually think nobody would be able to do that?

Also, which eye? There are loads of eyes that are suited the individual species and their habitat(s). Again, evidence of evolution by itself.

[OfficerVajardian]

I think it's just because humans previously did not understand how the eye works and how it was formed by evolutionary processes and therefore an Intelligent Designer was the reason. But now we DO understand the processes that created the eye and how it functions so therefore there was no reason anymore to wedge an Intelligent Designer in.

Cool, lets hear how the eye developed step by step.

I would suggest seeing Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey Episode 2, where they take you through this.