Intelligent design is a rational explanation for the origin of species

Thanks Pro. I. Rant I am puzzled by the formatting of this debate, where Pro mandated that I affirm abiogenesis, yet his arguments for ID actually argue against evolution, and not abiogenesis. This debate seems to be a shared BoP debate as a result, where if I can more effectively demonstrate that abiogenesis is the most rational hypothesis, and Pro needs to demonstrate that ID is rational full stop. Essentially, talk of abiogenesis seems to be a waste of time for the purposes of this resolution, as such I will spend most of this round tackling Pro’s arguments for the rationality of ID. II. Genetic Fallacy Pro lists a number of scientists which affirm his position, and in his second round affirmed that the purposes of this was to demonstrate that ID is rational, since rational people accept it (which is a Genetic Fallacy).[1] However this simply does not hold, having generally rational people accept ID in no way demonstrates that ID itself is at all rational, that sort of reasoning is just absurd. The claim is that qualified people hold a belief therefore the belief is rational, or something along those lines. To give a direct refutation, Pro listed qualified people who came to the conclusion that ID is true and rational, however over 1,300 scientists named ‘Steve’ in a tongue-in-cheek poll signed it acknowledging the following statement as true: “It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "ID," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.” So Pro has cited a handful of scientists that assert ID as true and rational, and I have asserted more than a handful of scientists that assert essentially the opposite. The best that Pro can hope for in this argument is a stalemate, ergo his argument is bunk.[2] III. What Pro needs to demonstrate Pro seems to object to my disjunctive formulation of his negative-arguments for ID, which essentially is what it has boiled down to so far. Pro has provided a number of structures/information arguments and only argued for ID on the virtue of the ‘impossibility of the contrary’ type of arguments. However Pro readily admits later in his round that there is significant ignorance in the field, especially abiogenesis. As such this is a formal argument ad ignorantum fallacy, since we have not addressed the search space adequately to make that conclusion.[3] I never said that Pro needs to demonstrate that ID is clearly the answer, I would argue that arriving at a stance that ID is the most likely cause of life is sufficient to demonstrate that it is a rational explanation for the origin of species, as per the resolution request. If it cannot be demonstrated with any confidence that ID is the most likely cause then it clearly cannot be a rational stance to take, since that would entail believing something to be true which objectively, and is known objectively to be most likely false. It would be more rational to remain agnostic on the explanation unless a better one exists. In the case of ID vs non-intelligent (i.e. natural) we don’t even have the luxury of remaining agnostic on the question, as the philosophical issues are quite clear. IV. Philosophical Problems with ID. There are two types of possibilities I will be discussing: Objective Possibility: Also known as metaphysically possibility, is what is physically possible in this world/universe Epistemic Possibility: What may or may not be possible in this world/universe The two types of possibility are very distinct, the latter epistemic possibility deals with the ‘for all I know it might be possible’ type of questions. For example, it is epistemically possible there is broom in the cupboard, due to my ignorance of the contents of it. It is a fact that there is a broom in the cupboard or not, but knowledge of such can only be attributed epistemically.[4,5] In the case of objective possibility, it is a possibility that we know is physically possible within this universe, for example it is physically possible for a dice to hit a ‘six’, or for a car to possibly break down. The difference here is we know the physical entities actually exist, and we have characterized their likelihoods. Now this applies to ID vs naturalism - type arguments in a very important way, and I will list the positions for both sides: ID: Epistemically Possibly Objectively Possible Naturalism: Objectively possible The problem with ID is simple, it can only be objectively possible IF an intelligent agent actually exists, where if such can be established then we can make some rough probabilistic comparisons. However the only way this can be meaningfully done is if an intelligent agent can actually be demonstrated to exist in the first place. It is impossible for someone to win a lottery ticket if the national lottery itself doesn’t exist, and hence this needs to be primarily established.[5] Furthermore, the enormous advantage naturalism has is that the physical processes actually do exist. Basic chemistry exists, complex chemistry exists, catalysis exists and simple self-replicating systems have been demonstrated to exist. Despite Pro’s attempts to assert the contrary, there is no apparent ‘brick wall’ that prevents the processes that lead to something that would be called life that actually exists. Moreover I argued in the first round that the process is in fact thermodynamically favoured and driven. Therefore so far I argue we have excellent reasons to accept it’s highly objectively possible. Without demonstrating an intelligent agent however, Pro’s argument can’t even get off the ground, since we cannot even say if the intelligent agent in question is capable of producing life, and how abundantly. Moreover, just demonstrating the objective possibility essentially lends enormous reason to accept it as true, since according to Murphy’s Law, given enough time and enough attempts, anything that is objectively possible will happen. I argued in the first round the vastness of scale of the size of the universe (some 10^24 planets) and the general timescales involved would make even stupifyingly physically improbable events inevitable.[6] V. Arguments Against ID For ID to be likely objectively possible, then we are left with physical entities, such as aliens. However there are a number of reasons why this is unlikely: 1. Lack of ulterior interest in seeding life The effects of seeding life would have taken billions of years to occur, and as such any physical gains from doing such would take an unrealistic amount of time to yield. Given that we are talking about a significantly advanced intelligence here it seems stupifyingly unfeasible that other more effect methods for the physical ‘fruits of labor’ to have been produced. 2. Lack of non-reproducing ‘intelligent artifacts’ Judging by activity of humans, we know that humans make a significant number of artifacts, such as cars, engines, planes etc, of which we can expect there to be significant evidence of for billions of years. Yet we have come across zero such examples on the Earth that are not of human-origin, which counts against there being a physical entity. I will present a horned dilemma to tie things off: Either the Intelligent Agency is physical or non-physical 1. If physical, then it concedes that life is objectively possible 2. If non-physical, then the IA is not objectively possible By physical, I mean entirely based within the rules of this universe, the first horn follows quite logically, since it concedes that life exists physically anyway, and as such there is absolutely no reason why we should expect the same would not be possible with Earth’s life naturally (such as via. abiogenesis). If the intelligent agency must be non-physical, then it simply cannot be on any level objectively possible, and very questionably epistemically possible, since it may not be logically possible for such an entity to exist, let alone interact with the universe. VI. Clearing Up Abiogenesis: Pro quite frankly strawmans my arguments with horribly invalid syllogisms, although the points are plain to see. Yes proposing an additional intelligent agency does violate Occam’s Razor for instance, making additional assumptions when unnecessary is a bad philosophical principle. Moreover Pro attacks the steps involved in abiogenesis probabilistically, however Pro moves the goalposts here, since I am in no way demonstrating the formation of bacteria via. abiogenesis, but only that of a simple self-replicating system that is capable of evolution via. natural selection. VII. Meyer’s Syllogism Pro presents Stephen Meyer’s syllogism which is not at all logically valid, what on earth is it supposed to be?!?! Until Pro can demonstrate this syllogism to be logically valid, then the conclusion cannot logically follow from the premises, and hence it can be ignored. Moreover even if Pro demonstrates the syllogism logically valid, then he also needs to demonstrate the premises logically sound, which he has also failed to do. VIII. Information Again Pro has provided the loosest of definitions of information, to which my earlier rebuttals still apply amply. Moreover Pro ignores that mutation mechanisms are capable of creating raw segments of genetic material (‘information’), and natural selection is capable of carving the gene pool to be more ‘meaningful’.[7] This may seem unsatisfying as a naturalistic explanation, but I can only work with the vague definitions that Pro has provided… IX. References 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://ncse.com... 3. http://philosophy.lander.edu... 4. http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law 7. http://en.wikipedia.org...