The Law of Parsimony Favors Intelligent Design - B

Introduction: My opponent should take note of the things I DID NOT say. I did not posit a metaphysical universe, an omnipotent creator, or mystery (at least no more than alternative theories have areas of mystery). Intelligent Design merely says that observed complexity is best explained by positing intelligence. 1. Oversimplification My opponent suggests that crucial to my argument is the idea of oversimplification. Of course this is wrong. I am merely suggesting that if one wishes to oversimplify ID to better fit the nuances of their supposed argument, they must rightly accept ID as more parsimonious. He suggests that the secular oversimplification (the singularity created) is equally as parsimonious. Unfortunately, positing intelligence is much different than positing the Big Bang. Why? 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). We will call this assumption number 1. The sustainability of our universe, its laws and constants, the origin of life – all require innumerous amounts of unobserved assumptions. Intelligence could adequately explain these phenomena (we are still on ID's first assumption). Moreover, the initial singularity (and the Big Bang) requires 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. Dealing with probabilities I made no mistake, I meant 1 in 10 raised to the negative 1,018. If my opponent believes that I have erred I would ask that you consult his resident mathematician. However, perhaps a more tenable mathematical model was produced by Professor Andrew Watson. He suggests that "life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years (2)." "You make the mistake of thinking an unlikely event needs an explanation better than that it was possible." You make the mistake in misunderstanding the fact that theories, by their very nature, are designed to explain. Given the low probabilities of not only a sustainable universe, but the emergence of life itself, one must posit numerous assumptions. While observed complexity can be explained by positing a designer, it can also be explained by positing innumerable processes – but which one is more parsimonious? I fully admit that it is logically possible for the universe to emerge by chance. But that is not what we are questioning. We are questioning whether Intelligent Design is a more parsimonious theory than alternatives. Moreover, since you are using the dice analogy, given what we know about our universe's constants and life itself, 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. The fact of the matter is that we do not merely look and say "this number is improbable," because it is no less probable then anything else that could have been rolled, but rather that we look and say "Wow, if these numbers were ANY DIFFERENT we would not have existed." This sort complexity and order is the mark of intelligence – therefore observed complexity can be explained by positing an intelligent designer. Similarly, if I walked in the woods and saw a fully assembled log cabin, I would not insist that the trees happened to fall in such a way as to construct the cabin – I would rightly posit a designer – even if he be unobserved. In order for somebody to explain the log cabin without positing a designer, they would have to posit numerous assumptions and unobserved phenomena. Which is more parsimonious? 3. My opponent espouses the multiverse theory I presume that this is the alternative theory my opponent wishes to defend as the most parsimonious. He contends that the multiverse theory is the most parsimoniously possible theory because it: "is algorithmically the most parsimonious possible theory. Its wealth of universes is in fact the consequence of its algorithmic economy: 0 parameters." Of course the idea of 0 parameters is already in contradiction with algorithmic economy. 0 parameters allow for infinite steps, but algorithms, by definition, have a finite amount of steps (3). Also, parsimony does not look at the parameters, but the steps. Each algorithmic step serves as an assumption. Every unobserved (and forever unobservable) universe posited by the Multiverse theory counts as an assumption. Since it posits an infinite number of unobserved universes, one can easily say that ID is infinitely more parsimonious than the Multiverse theory (it does, in fact, "make up" an infinite amount of unobserved universes, all to explain the mathematical improbability of this one). 4. God and complexity Even if it were God specifically that I was invoking, this would be wrong. A certain game designer said, "mass quantities of information can easily be produced from much smaller quantities of information. A fractal is perhaps the most obvious example of huge quantities of new information being produced from a very small amount of initial information. For example, thirty-two lines of C++ code suffice to produce a well-known fractal known as the Sierpinski Triangle (4)." So to assume that God must therefore be complex is an unfounded assertion and contra-observation. Sequential, intricate, and organized patterns are markers of designs – we have observed this in our own designs. By way of microcosm, we are able to infer design in our universe. It is funny that my opponent would wish to bring up the idea of infinite regress – because it was he who is positing an infinite amount of universes. Let us take this syllogistically: 1. Actual infinities do not exist in the real world 2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinity 3. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning Since motion requires time, the initial singularity must have been motionless. But all things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon. Therefore, even the initial singularity requires cause. We are in infinite regress unless something is both eternal, uncaused, and as Aquinas first stated, unmoved. 5. ID and explanatory power My opponent suggests that ID can only account for the beginning of our universe (though he rightly admits that "every other event could be either the direct doing of God or the result of processes He set in motion long ago)." The only reason he assumes ID to have less explanatory power is because it is "disruptive of attempts to explain most things." But this is the fallacy of consequences. ID itself IS itself an explanation. Even still, the big bang theory and the multiverse theory only explain "genesis" as well. We are talking about the origins of the universe, and if ID suffices to explain that, and indeed most parsimoniously, I would say my burden is fulfilled. Conclusion: 1. My opponent must therefore prove that the multiverse theory contains absolutely no assumptions. 2. He must prove that the designer must be more complex than its design. 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. Sources: 1. http://bigbangneverhappened.org... 2. http://www.scientificblogging.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. Vox Day, TIA 153