The Law of Parsimony favors Intelligent Design

I sincerely apologize, JJMD280. My holiday was wonderful and I am happy to hear yours went well. I am happy we got to debate this subject, and as was expected, you are a great opponent. On with the debate ********** "No, I mustn't. All I must do is show that ID makes more assumptions than The BB." And I hope my opponent intends to show this. Indeed he has hitherto done no such thing. "No, I mustn't. I must show a naturalistic explanation or say "I don't know" - both better than positing an intelligence where it is not needed." You must then show that intelligence is not natural. Remember, we are talking about parsimony in regards to theory. The theory that assumes more, is the theory to be disregarded. "No, I mustn't. The log cabin, by virtue of being explainable by ID, is a rather poor analogy to the Universe, which gives no evidence of design." False, complexity and order are a fundamental tenet of design. I'm sure if design was not ********** 1. The Fatal Flaw? My opponent suggests that I have a fatal flaw in my argument in regards to observed complexity. He assumes that we cannot infer design in the universe because we judge design in contrast to nature. The problem is that we are talking about intelligence. Design of the log cabin is immediately obvious because the complexity and order is immediately obvious. Design can be inferred using the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion. Design theorists begin with observations of how intelligent agents act when designing to help them recognize and detect design in the natural world. My opponent goes forward with a complete Red Herring about babies and hurricanes. Who cares? We are talking about design, not morality and ethics. Nor are we talking about anthro-centrism. "Then you MUST ask - What is this Creator? Where is this Creator?" No more than you HAVE to ask what is and where was this initial singularity. We both agree that time had a beginning, so it is indeed nonsensical to argue what happened "before" that. Why does my opponent insist on setting fire to straw? "We do not know what other conditions COULD have resulted in a universe that could support life, we only know the particulars of our own universe" My opponent should take note that I am not just talking about the sustainability of life, but the sustainability of our entire universe. All the laws and constants seem fine-tuned for existence. One cannot simply say, "well it could have been different." Scientific theories are not formed by what is not known, but by what IS known. What we know is that our universe could not exist differently given our laws and constants – it is an impossibility. Indeed, saying that it could possibly be different is not parsimonious at all, it is neither observed nor ever observable. ****** 1. Assumptions of the Bang The problem with the Big bang is that it assumes that the universe was created in the same way it operates. But this is neither rational nor necessary. Design proponents understand that things designed are not designed in the way they operate. Is it rational or necessary to assume that the universe was created in the same way it operates? For instance, a flashlight operates by changing electrical energy into light. However, it would be absurd to believe it was created by the conversion of electrical energy into light. The Big Bang theory observes current phenomena – like space expansion – and infers the initial singularity in which neither time, space, nor matter existed outside of. This is an unobservable phenomenon (and forever unobservable). The sustainability of our universe, its laws and constants, the origin of life – all require innumerous amounts of unobserved assumptions. The theory also posits THREE hypothetical entities that do not have scientific confirmation of existence: The inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation (1). Indeed, if dark matter did exist, it would contradict the law of conversation of energy and matter. If there is a theory, with the same explanatory power and less assumptions, according to the rule of parsimony, it is to be preferred. Contradictions are a no-no too. 2. Assumptions of Intelligent Design The ID proponent makes one assumption that is based on observed phenomenon. We observe intelligence and design. By observing the sorts of choices that intelligent agents commonly make when designing systems, a positive case for intelligent design is easily constructed by elucidating predictable and reliable indicators of design. ID is the science that studies intelligence. Just as it takes numerous assumptions to "naturalistically" explain a fully assembled log cabin; it takes numerous assumptions to explain an incredibly fine-tuned universe. "Adding a supernatural to the theory of the beginning of the universe to our current understanding is making a mockery of parsimony, science and rational thought." Intelligence is not supernatural. Conclusion: My opponent suggests that the Big Bang theory is a more parsimonious explanation yet he fails to give any convincing evidence. The Big Bang theory has more assumptions and posits MORE unconfirmed entities than ID. (1) http://bigbangneverhappened.org... http://www.designinference.com... http://www.evolutionnews.org...