Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part3)

Thank you. Today I will be arguing that intelligent design is an irrational belief. I think this debate ultimately boils down on what exactly does it mean to say that a belief is rational. While my opponent has said the belief doesn't necessarily have to be true, "(they don't have to convince anyone that its false, just that its an irrational belief)", he continues the rest of his speech trying to prove why intelligent design is true.To believe in something untrue is irrational, and this will be the standard by which I pursue the debate. I think it's safe to say then that whichever side gives you the better argumentation (of whether intelligent design is true/false) will win this debate. I will be arguing to the best of my ability as to why intelligent design is false, untrue and therefore irrational. Before I begin, I would like to point out that - Intelligent Design An intelligent designer, also referred to as an intelligent agent, is the willed and self-conscious entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life - is an extremely vague definition. My opponent will be confusing the intelligent design of humans with the ultimate intelligent designer of the universe - when these are not the same thing. First I will present two arguments of my own and then rebut the propositions arguments. =========== ARGUMENTS =========== 1) Intelligent Design is Unintelligent Intelligent design is an attempt at a reasonable way to discern the nature of the universe and how it came to exist. Many people, as my opponent has done, look toward the inherent complexity of the universe and say that the only reason such a thing could exist is due to a more complex, a more intelligent being. However, as I was frustrated with the definitions that my opponent has given, so too are many people frustrated with the intelligent design theory. The fact of the matter is, intelligent design gives us very little understanding of the universe. In fact, to acknowledge that the universe was intelligently designed gives us no further outlook in regards to the nature to the universe than saying it was not intelligently caused. Ultimately, to say that an intelligent designer created the universe is an appeal to ignorance. If we cannot know the nature of the existence of a complex thing, some sort of intelligent being caused its existence [1]. IN SUMMARY - Intelligence is supposed to give us a broader foundation and a wider outlook on that which we are seeking to understand. However, intelligent design gives us very little to create such a foundation. If anything, intelligent design bars us from seeking out any further information because we've reached an ambiguous, vague and largely irrelevant conclusion. 2) Nothing In the Natural Universe is Intelligently Designed Everything within the universe is governed by the law of cause & effect. In fact, the very purpose of science is to model understanding regarding this causal relationship: to discern the effects of something on something else. It is important to observe that because of this causal relationship, what we consider primitive things were the foundations for what we consider to be our intelligent selves. For example, through our understanding of natural evolution within organisms, we come to acknowledge the fact that these organisms came to be from more primitive, more simple beings. One celled organisms because multi-cellular organisms, and then these organisms grew and developed into the various beings that we know today. There is no exclusive intelligence to be had about any of them. Each being was caused by a more primitive one (simpler -> complex development). IN SUMMARY - everything in the universe is caused by something else in the universe. Thus, everything that we consider to be "intelligent" was at one point created by something much more primitive. IE, a watch was created by a human being, however a human being evolved from more primitive life forms, etc. The further we go into the chain, the more primitive, not intelligent, our foundations get. ===== REBUTS ===== Arg 1 - 1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause. This has been rebutted in my second argument. "2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts." Just because there are multiple working parts doesn't mean it was designed to behave this way. Things can come into existence out of a necessary cooperation. For example, when Darwin discovered numerous species of birds on the Galapagos islands, he understood that these birds weren't designed uniformly. Rather, they were adapted by the causing influence of their environment. Was their environment the intelligent cause of their individual unique features? No because my opponent would not attribute intelligence to the natural world. Therefore, there is no intelligent cause. "But only something with "intelligence" is capable of intent. For instance a computer can follow its programming, but it doesn't have the "intent" to do something, sure its follows the process, but the intent lies in the person that put the programming in the computer in the first place." Arg 2- 1) Something exists either by intent or no intent or necessity. 2) Humans do not exist by no intent or necessity. 3) Therefore humans exist by intent. Three things 1) This syllogism is completely irrelevant. No meaningful argument is being made here. It's made in his paragraphs... 2) "But only something with "intelligence" is capable of intent." - this has been refuted by my second argument, that primitive things can lead to more complex things as long as the need to evolve (in response to their volatile environment) is there. 3) My opponent is misconstruing intelligence/intent with purpose/cause. The computer is built for a certain purpose which is caused by the need of the creator. This creator is purely physical and is futhermore caused by other physical things. However, notice in my second argument I have made the case that, the further we go in the chain of causality, the more primitive the causes become. The beauty of simplicity to complexity is that multiple different simple things can come together to form one complex thing, and so forth. ======= SUMMARY ======= In short, my opponent has done very little to demonstrate why intelligent design is a rational belief. All of the arguments for the rationality behind intelligent design have been succesfully rebutted and arguments for the irrationality of intelligent design have been presented. To summarize this round Arguments by opponent: 1) Complex things have an inherent design and therefore an intelligent designer -> Untrue; in the universe we can see that primitive things cause complex things. For example, through the theory of evolution we recognize how primitive cells can evolve into complex multi-cellular organisms - by adaptation and mutation - all natural, primitive and ultimately dynamic and non-designed things. 2) Humans exist by intent - the intent of the intelligent designer -> Untrue; humans exist by virtue of the random mutation that is explained by evolution. This evolution is spurred by the characteristic environment that the previous species existed in. Human existence is no more purposeful than any other physical & existent thing in this world. Arguments by me 1) Intelligent design is fruitless. There is no further knowledge to be had via intelligent design theory. We bar ourselves from further understanding of the universe. 2) Everything within the universe is NOT intelligently designed. Humans exist in the universe. Just like everything else in the universe - humans were designed from primitive, simple things evolving into complex things. References: [1] http://www.vexen.co.uk... [2] http://brneurosci.org...