topic 7: intelligent design
Supporters of Intelligent Design propose that the existence of complex organisms and a complex universe in itself gives abundant evidence that there must be an intelligent designer behind the creation. Theologian William Paley gave two examples of this using, a man-made object, a watch, and another giving a proposed divine-made object, the human eye. Paley suggests something as intricate as a watch was made in such a way that it would function and if the parts were put together in any other way, it would not. Furthermore, if we were to find a watch, we would not assume that the watch had just always been there, but that it had been created. Alternatively, Paley found the eye as one of the most profound examples of complex design in existence. He turned to biology to give examples of the numerous ways in which the eye was made to exactness, and asserted from there that it must have then been made for that purpose by an intelligent designer. William A. Dembski, along these same lines, argues that life is not just complex, but that it is also specified. In being specified, we naturally agree that there is intelligence behind it. Dembski suggested that there are only three ways in which something can be produced: randomly, by natural law, or by an intelligent designer. He also turns to biology to address that an intelligent designer is the most sound answer. However, the biggest proponent to the theory, Darwin's theory of natural selection, also finds it's roots in biology. Darwin claims as unlikely as it is, organisms have been shown to develop in a way that they are most adaptable to their environments. These developments over a long period of time, have the potential to be as miraculous as the eye, but in other circumstances have shown to cause deformities. The latter leads to the idea that natural selection cannot be intelligent.
After nearly a semester's study of Logic, I find that I can not readily accept the argument of intelligent design as logically sound. I find in itself it appears logical, but that it relies on too many fallacies of presumption that I can readily name. Firstly, as the book hints at, any argument that relies on analogy in most situations is considered logically weak. Likewise, in a lot of instances I find that there may be an appeal to unqualified authority. I found the exception to this to be the paragraph about physicist Michael Davies who points to the "anthropic principles" of natural laws that show without so many exact laws in place the universe would not be able to stabilize and hold life. But I even found myself skeptical to this, as I find rational thinking does not necessarily prove anything. While it is definitely miraculous that everything fell into place as it did, and the chance of this happening is one and a billion, that chance still exists. People often disclaim things as impossible because they have a low probability, but that is not how probability works. If there is a one and a billion chance of something happening, it could happen in a billion years, or it could happen in 3 years, or it could happen twice in five years. But beyond that, I feel as if many arguments that relate back to biology coming from someone who is not a biologist is something we need to really look at, as the understanding behind it may not be as sound as we are expected to believe. And finally I feel as if this argument commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. Simply because we have no evidence of complex things being created by a non-intelligent designer does not mean it must follow that everything is created by an intelligent designer. I do not find the argument from Design completely implasible but I feel it chooses to assume too much that we at this point do now know.
After nearly a semester's study of Logic, I find that I can not readily accept the argument of intelligent design as logically sound. I find in itself it appears logical, but that it relies on too many fallacies of presumption that I can readily name. Firstly, as the book hints at, any argument that relies on analogy in most situations is considered logically weak. Likewise, in a lot of instances I find that there may be an appeal to unqualified authority. I found the exception to this to be the paragraph about physicist Michael Davies who points to the "anthropic principles" of natural laws that show without so many exact laws in place the universe would not be able to stabilize and hold life. But I even found myself skeptical to this, as I find rational thinking does not necessarily prove anything. While it is definitely miraculous that everything fell into place as it did, and the chance of this happening is one and a billion, that chance still exists. People often disclaim things as impossible because they have a low probability, but that is not how probability works. If there is a one and a billion chance of something happening, it could happen in a billion years, or it could happen in 3 years, or it could happen twice in five years. But beyond that, I feel as if many arguments that relate back to biology coming from someone who is not a biologist is something we need to really look at, as the understanding behind it may not be as sound as we are expected to believe. And finally I feel as if this argument commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. Simply because we have no evidence of complex things being created by a non-intelligent designer does not mean it must follow that everything is created by an intelligent designer. I do not find the argument from Design completely implasible but I feel it chooses to assume too much that we at this point do now know.