Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part 4)

Pro makes the charge "This is a fallacy of composition. The fact that there are irrational people (as a part) who assert ID does not mean that ID (as a whole) is irrational. " Before when I made the point about literal biblical creationists advocating Intelligent design, I had not meant that ID should be rejected just because some one or group advocates ID. I am not arguing that ID should be rejected because the people that advocate may be irrational, but because the reasons given for ID is irrational. Yes I realize how my comments were taken to mean that by pro, I blame myself for not being more precise in my comments. Also I made another mistake where I said ""An intelligent designer requires an explanation". As Pro has noted, and I will paraphrase, in science for an explanation to be accepted the explanation its self doesn't need an explanation, sure its nice to have one, but its not an absolute necessary criteria. Pro says "Now if Con wishes to reject that peer reviewed publications should be considered part of the body of knowledge. .. " This is a strawman attack, I never argued that peer reviewed publications aren't part of science, what I did argue was that just because something is part of science doesn't make that something rational, example my hypothesis of invisible pink unicorns or Intelligent Design. Pro takes issue with my argument against the necessity of an intelligent designer. My arguments were in response to one of the most popular arguments used to support intelligent design which goes something like this. .. .. 1) Complexity requires an intelligent cause/designer 2) Humans are complex 3) Therefore humans have an intelligent cause/designer As I had said before, this argument is self defeating because. .. .. .. . "If an intelligent designer is required to explain complexity, then the intelligent designer its self needs an intelligent designer and that intelligent designer needs an intelligent designer. .. .. .. .. .. .. unto infinity" If some one claims that there is an intelligent designer that is not caused by another intelligent designer eg God. .. . "But this undercuts the argument of the necessity of an intelligent designer, cause if something as complex as God can exist without an intelligent designer, then so can humans who are even less complex than your typical christian/jewish/Islamic/theistic Gods, and if complexity requires an intelligent designer, then a complex God requires an intelligent designer" Now Pro has tried to infer that the intelligent design is a scientific, in order to justify that ID is rational. Consider what Richard Dawkins has to say on this matter. .. .. . "The argument the ID advocates put, such as it is, is always of the same character. Never do they offer positive evidence in favor of intelligent design. All we ever get is a list of alleged deficiencies in evolution. We are told of "gaps" in the fossil record. Or organs are stated, by fiat and without supporting evidence, to be "irreducibly complex": too complex to have evolved by natural selection [1] Previously Pro had said "Now the core argument when design is advocated is that a natural phenomenon is examined and design is concluded by rejecting all known undirected causes"" As said before, this is an argument from ignorance, this argument says that its ok to accept ID even though there is no evidence for it, all we have to do it rule out all known directed causes. Consider what Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch say on this issue "ID has been called an "argument from ignorance," as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause. " [2] What is the actual evidence for ID ? The definition of falsifiability is. .. .. "Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. " [3] I had asked Pro how is ID falsifiable, Pro gave the a general outline but not a specific example. Consider this specific example how evolution is falsifiable as Richard Dawkins says. .. .. .. "And - far more telling - not a single authentic fossil has ever been found in the "wrong" place in the evolutionary sequence. Such an anachronistic fossil, if one were ever unearthed, would blow evolution out of the water. As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian. " Evolution, like all good theories, makes itself vulnerable to disproof. Needless to say, it has always come through with flying colours" [1] So what is an example of how ID is falsifiable ? , how is ID vulnerable to disproof ? I look forward to Pros response. Sources [1] . http://www.guardian.co.uk... [2] . http://ncse.com... [3]. http://en.wikipedia.org...