Intelligent design is a rational explanation for the origin of species

Thanks Pro. It’s been fun. Information It is clear from Pro’s loose definition of information that anything and everything has information, including ice crystals, gas clouds just by virtue of their shape, size, velocity, temperature etc. Thus it is easy to object to Pro’s information arguments regarding ‘Chemical Information’ since all basic chemistry yields ‘chemical information’, hence why I asked for a more precise definition. It is also why I raised the general information rebuttals in my first round since information increases with entropy and randomness. Pro did not respond to those objections and drops this argument. Genetic Fallacy Even if Pro’s argument is not a genetic fallacy (it is), it commits a stretch of reason that is flimsy at best. The argument that people changed their minds because they claim they were swayed by the evidence, there is simply no logical progression from this to the statement ‘ID is a rational explanation for the origin of species’. They could well have changed their minds for irrational reasons, or have believed ID for entirely false, bad argumentations and fallacies, in which case ID still remains an irrational explanation. How convincing an argument is does not in any way demonstrate that the conclusion is a rational one, and I have shown how virtually all of the arguments for ID are based on poor reasoning and poorly supported assumptions and logical jumps, as such is not rational. A theory needs to be demonstrated to be more likely than not to be true in order to have belief in it be rational. A ‘best explanation yet’ is simply not adequate if all current explanations are poor explanations otherwise you would be in a position to hold beliefs that are most likely false. If there were no good naturalistic explanations for the origin of species, it in no way makes an intelligent explanation an explanation that is more likely than not to be true. Negative Arguments Pro performs at the very least a tu torque fallacy by turning the point about arguing from ignorance around on me, which even if true does not escape Pro from the fact that he is arguing from ignorance. Remember Pro needed to actually demonstrate that ID is a rational explanation, and hence attacking abiogenesis does not forward his case on this end. Pro claims that none of his arguments are “Impossibility of the contrary” types of arguments, but this is just false. I will go through each of Pro’s R1 arguments and show exactly how this is the case. SETI Argument Pro attempts to show that the techniques used by SETI are also used by archaeologists to determine intelligent origins, which is performed by: “According to SETI, what they do first is determine what normally occurs in nature and then search for exceptions to that.” This argument is black and white ‘impossibility of the contrary’ type argument, and hence a negative argument, since it is formulated: 1. Either Naturally or Intelligently 2. Not naturally C. Intelligently Where 1 is the unidentified ‘exceptions’ that are being searched for. The problem is that for every ‘exception’ found there may still lie a natural explanation, and as such the argument for SETI fails especially in light of the anthropic principle and selection bias. Information Argument I already discussed this, Pro gave the following justification for the chemical information having an intelligent origin: “The search for naturalistic sources for such information have failed, which leads us to the natural conclusion that it arose from intelligence.” Once again, is a negative proof, an impossibility of the contrary type of reasoning, and is problematic for reasons already given. Since the only justification for it arising from intelligence is that it could not have arisen naturally. Irreducible complexity The reasoning Pro gives for irreducible complexity requiring an intelligent designer is even worse (!) “There is no known natural cause for such a motor to be constructed. Without ID, it must be taken on blind faith that it arose by chance via mutation. Again, we use the same principles of identifying intelligence to conclude that this was invented by intelligence, not random chance.” What’s worse is Pro strawmans natural explanations, as I explained in my opening round, where evolution via. natural selection is a potent explanation for these facts, which Dr. Miller strongly argues for in ‘Finding Darwin’s God’ and ‘The Collapse of “Irreducible Complexity”.[4] The only concrete ‘principles of identifying intelligence’ are those already given in SETI and information arguments, which I demonstrated already to be a negative-argument. Therefore, all of Pro’s arguments are based on poor reasoning, as there are no positive reasons to accept that anything was intelligently designed, and relies on thoroughly addressing the search-space of natural explanations to forward it’s case. I am not stating that the argument is logically invalid, it is indeed valid disjunctive reasoning, just that it is next to impossible to demonstrate the minor premise of the disjunctive syllogism (not natural). It doesn’t even suffice to demonstrate natural explanations ‘highly improbable’, due to Murphy’s Law and the Anthropic Principle as already argued (to which Pro failed to respond).[1] Abiogenesis Pro never really attacked my arguments for abiogenesis, and essentially conceded them for the purposes of this debate. I gave several reasons why abiogenesis is the likely cause of life on Earth: 1. Thermodynamically driven/favoured 2. Comparable autocatalytic systems already exist in chemistry 3. Simple self-replicating systems already shown to exist 4. Long timescales & Large scales render even improbable events inevitable 5. The physical processes, chemistry etc. are actually known to exist 6. Multiple chemical hypothesis’ for abiogenesis (RNA World, Lipid World, Metabolism etc) Pro made a number of objections of abiogenesis but none of them are general to abiogenesis, essentially all them attacked abiotic peptide synthesis, but none of the hypotheses I presented necessarily require the use of peptides. Moreover Pro conceded that environments for peptide synthesis do exist anyway (as his source #5 states). Also, take note of the difference between mine & Pro’s methodology as we affirm ID and abiogenesis, clearly none of my arguments do not depend on any ‘impossibility of the contrary’ type arguments, and stands on its own two feet regarding the evidence. I gave reasons to believe that abiogenesis is not only possible, but actually favoured and driven by natural processes. I also gave examples of self-replicating systems that have been produced that are capable of evolution via. natural selection, exactly what is minimally required for ‘life’. None of Pro’s arguments are anything like this. As for the definition of abiogenesis, I actually searched the Wiki page and found 12 instances of ‘bacteria’ on the page, none state that abiogenesis is defined as leading to bacteria. Pro’s assertion that all our sources support his definition is a bare assertion, and I was explicit in what I was arguing for in abiogenesis in my opening (which would indeed be a system capable of evolving bacteria).Meyer’s Argument Pro seems to state that his argument actually means something because I am unable to refute it. On the contrary showing that the argument is logically invalid IS refuting the argument.[3] Take the following syllogism: 1. All humans are mammals 2. All mammals are animals C. All animals are humans In this argument, both premises are true, but the structure is invalid (and the conclusion is obviously false). The ONLY way to refute this argument is by showing the argument is invalid, since the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.[3] The same applies to Stephen Meyer’s argument, which is logically invalid, and hence refuted. Pro needed to show that the argument is logically valid in the first place (the BoP is on him), yet he did not, despite me prompting him to. Against Naturalism I don’t hold Pro’s misrepresentation of my arguments in his syllogism (reformulation of Meyer’s) to be logically valid either. What is it supposed to be? Modus Tollens? Modus Ponens? As such that argument doesn’t demonstrate natural causation either. Fortunately I have not made my argument in that formulation. Moreover it’s doesn’t help Pro in this case since the debate is about Intelligent Design. Even if I completely fail to affirm natural causation, it does not mean Pro has affirmed ID as rational. Inductive arguments are constructed differently, and the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premises even in logically valid inductive arguments.[5] However Pro’s arguments aren’t even logically valid… Possibility I demonstrated clear philosophical problems in failing to identify a intelligent designer, as it seriously calls into question whether or not such a designer is likely to exist in the first place. All of Pro’s arguments absolutely depend on a designer’s initial existence before he can make any probabilistic claims regarding something being intelligently designed. I demonstrated why physical intelligent design is highly unlikely and hence we are left with metaphysical designers that runs into serious epistemological hurdles. Can such a being actually exist? We are left appealing to something that is beyond our experience, and left proposing an additional entity which heavily violates Occam’s Razor. Far from it being a derailment of the topic, it is one of the biggest problems for the ID side. Conclusion I have shown all of Pro’s arguments run into the same category of problems in that they entirely rely on the negation of natural causation, and not on positive argumentation (such as what I provided for abiogenesis. Pro has essentially ignored my arguments for abiogenesis too, and hence drops the debate on both fronts. References1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...