Why intelligent design "proofs" are pointless

[robvalue]

(Apologies if there has already been a thread about this, I couldn't find a search option for the forum.)

As science gets further towards the truth, the gap between holy book scripture and reality gets larger and larger. To this end, more and more ridiculous arguments are created or modified to try and steer people back.

One of these is intelligent design. It is basically saying that humans and/or other things in the world are obviously the result of some form of intelligence creating them. The arguments are poor and flawed, but I want to point out why they are in fact entirely pointless.

Let us pretend for a minute that I believe one of these arguments. Say I concede that it is the logical conclusion that there is some sort of intelligent designer behind us and the planet. The next question would be, what do we know about this designer?

The answer: nothing. All we've shown is that there is a designer, we haven't demonstrated that the designer is what we would like it to be. It could be any one of an infinity of possibilities. It could be that we are the creation of beings who exist in higher dimensions that we can never see or detect. It could be that some magical invisible undetectable aliens who float around us all the time made us for kicks. You can label this designer "god", but that doesn't mean you know the first thing about it.

It could be anything. All we "know" (if I concede the intelligent design argument) is that we were designed by something. Claiming to jump from this to absolute knowledge that the designer is the christian god, the muslim god, or whatever, is ludicrous. All you are doing is guessing and inserting the answer that you want. You don't even know that there was a single designer and not a team of them. You don't know how powerful they are, whether they still exist, what their motivations were or how they actually created anything. You have nothing.

So the argument is pointless because the best it can do is to demonstrate there is a designer. Until we have some way of gathering reliable information about this designer, that is as far as this argument can ever go. "Something made us." So what? It gets you to theism, and no further. The same is true of trying in some way to debunk science, evolution, cosmology etc. Even if you proved science to be completely wrong, that in no way provides evidence that a particular alternative is in fact true.

And since science is showing more and more that a universe without an outside influence like that of a "god" is indistinguishable from a universe without any such influence, the only logical conclusion is that the "god" (if there is one) created the universe and then had no further involvement. That is called deism.

[Gawdzilla]

Proving science wrong doesn't prove YOUR god is right, it doesn't prove any god is right.

[Clueless Morgan]

I kind of disagree.

If you blindly accept the initial conclusion of the teleological argument, you can infer some conclusions about the Designer - not many, but some. Firstly, that it designs. Secondly, the methods it uses to design (natural laws, evolution, etc.). What you can't do is conclude that it's any particular god, or aliens or superdimensional, intergalactic RPG players, you can't conclude why this designer designed anything at all, etc.

The problem is that by accepting the conclusion of the initial argument you're letting this person get away with murder. You can't simply assert that something that appears designed requires a designer, therefore the designer necessarily exists. You have to demonstrate that something with the appearance of design necessitates a designer, which we have shown, scientifically, is not the case.

An ID-accepting theist can then propose that their favorite designer was the one that created the laws and mechanisms according to which we can observe the universe functioning, but then they fall into an argument from ignorance because they're back to asserting things they can't demonstrate.

[Esquilax]

The problem is that by accepting the conclusion of the initial argument you're letting this person get away with murder. You can't simply assert that something that appears designed requires a designer, therefore the designer necessarily exists. You have to demonstrate that something with the appearance of design necessitates a designer, which we have shown, scientifically, is not the case.

Before you do that, you also have to establish how you detect that something appears designed, which is curiously absent, or fallaciously stated in intelligent design arguments. The lazy ID proponent will claim that X just looks designed and so it is, which begs the question because it could equally be true that now there are two categories, one for designed-looking things that are designed and one for those that are natural. A more competent ID-er will argue that complexity equals design, but that too just begs the question as well as providing the unjustified assertion that nothing complex can be natural. Not to mention, in a world where we know evolution happens, complexity is actually the hallmark of circuity, of processes doubling back on themselves to reach their eventual function. In the world we live in simplicity would be the mark of design, as it would demonstrate things evolving greater functionality with fewer "steps" than it should be possible to do so, and even that is an argument from ignorance when you get right down to it.

The truth is, anyone arguing for ID has no way to detect design at all, because they have no point of contrast. In an intelligently designed world everything was designed, and they have no natural occurrences with which to make comparisons. If you believe everything to be designed, how do you pick out any individual thing to be designed specifically? What are the markers of design in a world like that? It can't be complexity or simplicity, as they believe everything, simple or complex, to be intelligently designed.

It's a self refuting position, really.

[ShaMan]

I couldn't find a search option for the forum.

On the login screen to the right of the "log out" tab.

---

I think we (Humans) are desperately trying to work at the problem from the wrong angle. We say... "Look! This apparent mechanism of biology appears to have been designed." but we make that assessment using our own (Mankind's) subjective set of standards and ideologies of "design" and "mechanisms", which, of course, accord with our philosophies. This is where I suspect the idea that [we can "know" god] comes from. The idea that we can compare the world around us, to us, as though we were the objective standard to attain, is a fundamental flaw in our considerations, and in my opinion, has lead to man creating god in his own image.

[Clueless Morgan]

Before you do that, you also have to establish how you detect that something appears designed, which is curiously absent, or fallaciously stated in intelligent design arguments.

Agreed.

It's a self refuting position, really.

But, sadly, those who advocate for ID don't realize how vacuous and lazy a position it actually is.

[Esquilax]

But, sadly, those who advocate for ID don't realize how vacuous and lazy a position it actually is.

It's a standard theistic tactic: don't rigorously interrogate any claim that supports a given theistic presupposition.

[robvalue]

Ok thanks Shaman

Sure, I don't for a minute accept the arguments. My point is that their goal is not achievable, so trying to make any argument along these lines are pointless. I'm kind of saying that even if you find the key you are looking for, it won't open the door you think it will.

I'm trying to get them to give up on the whole line of inquiry. Instead of finding more and more stupid ways to try and make the argument work, accept that it can't ever lead to the conclusion they want anyway.

I feel that if enough logical blows land, a few people at least may start to question things.

[Clueless Morgan]

It's a standard theistic tactic: don't rigorously interrogate any claim that supports a given theistic presupposition.

[Tonus]

But, sadly, those who advocate for ID don't realize how vacuous and lazy a position it actually is.

They may realize it and not care. I get the impression that ID wants to appear as if it is straddling a line between science and mysticism. It identifies what it sees as weak points in the theory of evolution and demands that those be explained satisfactorily. As long as they can keep coming up with proposed weak points, they can keep the con alive. There is no attempt at "defending" ID, since that might lead towards a religious discussion, and they want to avoid that because it could very well kill the whole idea of teaching ID in schools.

I don't think it's difficult to boil ID down to a "god of the gaps" approach for which the answer is "MY god." Once we do that, then the attempt at promoting it as some sort of serious scientific approach falls flat and should be dismissed.