The Law of Parsimony favors Intelligent Design

(Internal voice - Why, thank you, JJMD280, I did have a good holiday. And I'm glad you did also.....) First off, thanks for a thought-provoking argument. I will begin with addressing my opponent's conclusions - 1. My opponent must therefore prove that the Big Bang theory contains absolutely no assumptions. No, I mustn't. All I must do is show that ID makes more assumptions than The BB. 2. He must prove that the designer must be more complex than its design. 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. 3. He must prove that, if we found a perfectly sustainable log cabin in the woods, that we should assume it naturally fell together. AND that this marvelous phenomenon is more parsimonious than positing a designer. 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. The fatal flaw with this theory is the idea of "observed complexity". Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. (the log cabin) Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. Therefore, you posit God. God being supernatural, is not by any means parsimonious. So much for log cabins. And the observation of design raises more questions - What about the NASTY things that exist, such as babies born without brains, good people suffering monstrous tortures such as neurofibromatosis, evil people basking in the sun and enjoying power, reputation, etc. Volcanoes erupting, earthquakes rattling the planet, hurricanes and tornadoes blindly wiping out thousands of lives a day? Is this intelligent? BUT - we already have naturalistic explanations for these events - there is no need to add ID to the mix - The Law of Parsimony states not to add more when you already have a viable explanation. Then you MUST ask - What is this Creator? Where is this Creator? And knowing that ID is just Neo-Creationism in stealth mode to seem scientific, you can't answer these very important questions, and never will be able to. If science stopped today and said ID was the truth, science stops being science. We all know you are not proposing that ET dreamed us up. We have evidence of a BB, we don't have one shred of a creator. ( Please note my opponent did not refute the evidence I provided that demonstrates a BB.) "But in order to make ANY alternative theory work, there has to be NUMEROUS assumptions (things made up) to account for observed complexity and the origins thereof." Now, what happened before the BB? Nonsensical. Nothing happened before the BB, or nothing we can ever observe. Time began in the BB, so asking that question is like asking what is North of North? Now I ask again - what created your Creator? I cannot assume anything happened before the Big Bang. On probability - ""The problem? As my opponent rightly suggests, one would suspect some tomfoolery with the numbers when it comes to the former 1,2,3,4,5. This is an organized pattern. But there is still a huge problem: It is not analogous. We observe that the universe had a beginning. The numbers rolled would have to be exactly 1,2,3,4,5…billion…trillion – all sequential – all in one try – or the universe would not be sustainable. This sort complexity and order is the mark of intelligence – therefore observed complexity can be explained by positing an intelligent designer."" Look at it this way - BEFORE the roll of the die, the probability of any roll is 1:1 (doesn't even matter how many sides the die has) - that is, any result has an equal chance of occurring. It is only AFTER it has rolled that you can assess the post-probability. 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, and seeing that we can't as of yet assess anything beyond the light barrier of the universe (another support of the BB) it is more truthful and scientifically parsimonious to not assume that ID can answer this. As we go along and fill in the Gaps in the theory, with observable data and scientific explanation, ID proponents will fall to the wayside. That is, except for the diehards. The question is: why do design arguments remain so durable if empirical evidence is inferentially ambiguous, the arguments logically controversial, and the conclusions vociferously disputed? 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. I am enjoying this debate, and wish my opponent well in his next round. Thank You. http://www.skepticfiles.org... http://www.iep.utm.edu... http://skepdic.com...