The Law of Parsimony favors Intelligent Design

Introduction: My opponent suggests that I misrepresented the Rule of parsimony by suggesting that it is the simplest explanation. I most certainly did not make anything up (get it?). It is the simplest explanation in terms of assumptions. Assumptions are, of course, things that are "made up" based on observation. The least amount of assumptions is to be considered the most parsimonious explanation. My opponent should not accuse me of misrepresentation based on a poor understanding of what I wrote. 1. Who created the creator? Yes, this is the tiresome retort of many atheist apologists. But indeed, this is no different than me asking, what created the initial singularity (the precondition to the Big Bang)? Causality necessitates infinite regress unless something was uncaused – on this we can agree. I could posit an uncaused entity; my opponent could posit an oscillating big bang. Both have equal explanatory power and are unobserved assumptions. However, observed complexity is best explained by intelligence. 2. My opponent agrees? Does my opponent agree that ID is a far more parsimonious explanation than the multiverse theory? It does, in fact, "make up" an infinite amount of unobserved universes, all to explain the mathematical impossibility of this one. "but seeing as you are stepping out of naturalistic explanations into the realm of supernatural" Unless my opponent wishes to call intelligence a supernatural explanation, he really has no tools in this shed. I never once posited a supernatural entity. I posited an unobserved, but possibly observable entity. 3. Probability theory is treacherous? My opponent insists that we are using two different types of probability here. He insists that when we use posterior probability we take into account the evidence of things that occurred already. He gives the example of a lottery ticket and how one would suspect chicanery if the winning numbers happened to be 1,2,3,4,5. But this is of course no different than the probability of getting 31, 3, 4, 12, 78. 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. 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? "For this reason, we cannot conclude that just because a proposed event that has already happened is unlikely, that the event itself did not occur and the proposed explanation is false." I never once said that the event did not occur – that is ludicrous. But we can challenge the proposed explanation if it is not parsimonious. The log cabin exists – we know that, but the probability of it naturally falling together is highly improbable and not at all parsimonious. "Therefore improbability by itself cannot refute an explanation of an event that has already happened." Yes, but it most certainly can influence the explanation. "invoking a God opens up much larger and more difficult questions to answer, God is enormously complex by definition." 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." So to assume that God must therefore be complex is an unfounded assertion and contra-observation. "Parsimony would suggest the Big Bang." False. The initial singularity and things prior to the "observed" effects of the Big Bang are assumptions – that is, things made up. ID posits ONE assumption: intelligence. 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. Conclusion: 1. My opponent must therefore prove that the Big Bang 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. Source: Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist, p. 153.