A Simple Argument For Intelligent Design
When I come across a new idea, I like to see if there are any relatively simple and obvious arguments that can be levied for or against it. When I first came across ID, this is the simple argument I used that validated it – IMO – as a real phenomenon and a valid scientific concept.
Simply put, I know intelligent design exists – humans (at least, if not other animals) employ it. I use it directly. I know that intelligent design as humans employ it can (but not always) generate phenomena that is easily discernible as product of intelligent design. Anyone who argues that a battleship’s combination of directed specificity and/or complexity is not discernible from the complexity found in the materials after an avalanche is either committing intellectual dishonesty or willful self-delusion – even if the avalanche was deliberately caused, and even if the rocks were afterward deliberately rearranged to maintain their haphazard distribution.
Some have argued that we only “recognize” human design, and that such recognition may not translate to the intelligent design of non-human intelligence. The easy answer to that is that first, we do not always recognize the product of human design. In fact, we often design things to have a natural appearance. That we may not recognize all intelligent design is a given and simply skirts the issue of that which we can recognize.
Second, it is again either delusion or dishonesty to ignore a simple hypothetical exercise: in some cases, were we to find certain kinds of objects/phenomena [edited for clarity] on distant, uninhabited and otherwise desolate planets, would we be able to infer that such were most likely specifically designed by intelligent creatures of some sort for some purpose?
‘Like’ The Poached Egg on Facebook! Follow @ThePoachedEgg
Again, the obvious answer to this except in cases of delusion or or dishonesty is “yes”. Then the question becomes: without a scientifically valid means of making such a determination, how would one be made? Intuition? Common sense? Is the recognizable difference between such artifacts and those that appear to be natural not a quantifiable commodity? If not, how do we go about making the case that something we find on such a planet is not a naturally-occurring phenomena, especially in cases that are not so obvious? There must be some scientifically-acceptable means of making such a determination – after all, resources committed to research depend upon a proper categorical determination; it would quite wasteful attempting to explain a derelict alien spacecraft in terms of natural processes – time and money better spent trying to reverse engineer the design for practical use and attempting to discern the purpose of its features.
Thus, after we make the determination that said object/phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, our investigatory heuristic is different from what it would be were we to assume the artifact is not intelligently designed…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED RESOURCES ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN: