Intelligent Arguments Against Intelligent Design (I.D.)

This article is a critical response to "Arguments Against Intelligent Design (I.D.)" by Christopher Hearn. I had planned to write this in an article response, but had so much to write, I figured i'd write a response article.

For the original article, see here:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/875613/arguments_against_intelligent_design_pg2.html?cat=34

In regards to:

1. "I.D. has no scientific support."
Lack of scientific support is not the problem, it is lack of evidence.

2. "Believers in ID are ignorant or unintelligent." This is not an "Argument Against Intelligent Design," as the title suggests, this is an opinion. A better "argument" against intelligent design would be "that "belief" is required to accept intelligent design as opposed to "looking at the available evidence" makes intelligent design either a supposition, or a religious or philosophical idea, but not a valid scientific theory."

3. Hearn responds to "the only reason people believe in I.D. is to try to explain that which we don't know," by saying, "People believe in I.D. because the evidence for a Creator is evidence which we do understand." Then he presents his "evidence" which is basically, "It's too complex to have happened by chance." This is not evidence, this is a supposition. Besides, lots of complex things form by chance, like snowflakes. And as far as his statement that "All...parts must fit together and work together for the organism to have any working function." He needs to explain how a complex organism like the body can function properly without an appendix.

4. "I.D. is not science, but religion packaged as science," he says, "this line of argument makes the mistake of putting the cart before the horse." How? By demanding that one provide evidence of a designer before postulating his/her/its existence? In science, one examines evidence THEN draws a conclusion. In ID, one concludes a designer and then looks for evidence to support it. If I make a claim, I must back it up with evidence. If I say "pink unicorns built the pyramids," I need to produce evidence of pink unicorns who can build pyramids.....I do not need to simply repeat that "man couldn't have done it." If one claims that there is a designer, one needs to produce the designer...otherwise, all one has is a supposition. Hearn also contradicts himself when he says "Yes, if one believes in I.D., then one will be lead to believe in some type of god." The path that leads to belief in some type of god is called: RELIGION!

5. In response to, "I.D. is religion. Science and religion should always be kept separate from each other," Hearn says, "Why should scientists before the fact say that the supernatural doesn't exist?" The DEFINITION of science is a branch of study that seeks to answer questions about the natural discernable world through natural discernable explanations. When we seek to understand the world through supernatural explanations, we call it "religion," "paranormal studies," or "mysticism," we DON'T call it "science."

6. In response to, "To "teach the controversy" would only lead legitimacy to an unscientific idea." Hearn says, "How can I.D. be unscientific if scientists are using science alone to support it?" Read the previous two paragraphs. Science starts with evidence and works to a conclusion. ID starts with the conclusion and looks for that which supports it. For ID to be a credible scientific theory, one needs to:

1. Provide evidence which shows that life on earth could not have occured naturally, by means of natural, random causes....like evolution.

AND

2. Identify who/what/where the designer/creator is or was and the methods used by this designer/creator.

Have these "scientists" shown beyond a reasonable doubt that life was not the product of natural, random causes? provided any evidence of the creator's identity? Have they been able to replicate the methods that this creator used? Have they been able to tell us where the creator is or was? Until they can, they have no evidence of a creator/designer therefore the theory falls apart and is relegated to a supposition or a philosophical idea but NOT a scientific theory. Therefore it is..."unscientific."

This particular part of the article is very curious:

"On another note, I had noticed years ago that even in pro-evolution videos, such as NOVA and National Geographic, they still had words like "design" thrown in."

Use of the word "design" by the narrators and cast of popular science television programs does not validate the theory of Intelligent Design. That's like saying anyone who uses the phrase "it's raining cats and dogs," literally believes that cats and dogs are falling from the sky.

Another curious quote:

"Consider this one quote which refers to the liver-

'These Japanese engineers tried to design a chemical plant that would work like the liver, but as they discovered, the chemical engineering carried out in the liver is more advanced than anything modern medical technology can offer. An enormous factory would be needed just for the energy distribution system. And handling the toxins was just overwhelming.'"

Just because man cannot yet replicate something that happens naturally doesn't mean:
a) he won't always be unable to. There was a time that birds could fly and man could not. And many people said, "Man will never be able to replicate nature." These same people also said that man would never be able to communicate instantaneously over long distances.....but here we are.
b) that the liver is NOT a naturally-occuring phenomena that came to be through natural means.

And then there's this quote:

"Please keep in mind that this is not James Dobson or the Institute for Creation Research or some other Christian video. This is from NOVA. Boston. PBS. The real deal. And this is one of many such quotes. Please send me an email if you would like the whole list."

Quote-mining is a popular pastime among ID proponents. They cherry-pick quotes that back up or appear to back up their "theory" most of the time without any contextual explanation of the quote. It is a way to provide "evidence by authority," which is fallacious. Quotes are not what validates or invalidates a scientific theory, evidence is. Darwin's theory isn't valid because "Darwin said it," but because the theory has been validated by science.

He also confuses disciplines with this part:

"Both sides of this issue recognize universal truths; for example the laws of physics, along with mathematical truths. I.D. proponents see these and take the logical conclusion- that laws of physics must have come from a Lawgiver. Evolutionists, on the other hand, say that such universal laws come from blind, random chance."

"Evoluton" is a theory that pertains to biology which concerns the origin of the species of life on earth. Evolution says nothing about the origin of the laws of physics and mathematical laws...which is why Darwin wrote "Origin of the Species" instead of "Origin of the Laws of Physics and Mathematics." But despite his lack of knowledge on the definition of evolution, I'll play along.

The laws of physics, mathematics, etc. are descriptions of observable phenomena, they are not embedded computer code instructing things how to behave....unless of course he can show me the hard drive on a gas particle.

Hearn concludes:

"The fact is, all around us we see both complexity and order; from how the human body works to how ecosystems work. Everything has it place and quite often works dependent on something else. This is not the chaos and disorder which one would expect to find in a universe driven by the random chance of evolution."

We also see disorder in asteroids colliding, lightning strikes, snowflake formations, cloud formations, species extinction, waves crashing and water spraying on the shore. We also see how the human body doesn't always work in birth defects, childhood cancer, mental illnesses, developmental disorders, diseases, and genetic deformities. We see ecosystems get disrupted, and organisms adapt, which couldn't happen in a static world of perfect order.

Mr. Hearn, let me "bottom line" it for you....

If you want to "believe" in an intelligent designer who created life, the universe and everything, go right ahead.

But until you can show us this designer, your ideas belong in religion, not science.