(un)Intelligent Design. — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Philosophy and other Silliness

(un)Intelligent Design.

This page's ID: 28922

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	[quote]Intelligent design, just declares that if you find something that in its complexity and functionality, if detached from one of its parts, becomes completely useless and unfunctional (along with this detached part), then it is plausible to say that that something was planned, or better yet, that that something had an intelligent designer. [/quote] Except that it is in no way, shape, or form logical! It starts off logically - "[i]If one finds something that in its complexity and functionality, if detached from one of its parts, becomes completely useless and unfunctional (along with this detached part)[/i]" (this is hard to prove, first of all, but let us establish it first here as a given for the sake of argument) - that part is logical, provided one can prove factually that it is completely useless and unfunctional along with the detached part. [b]HOWEVER[/b], this part "[i]then it is plausible to say that that something was planned, or better yet, that that something had an intelligent designer.[/i]" has absolutely nothing to do with logic. Just because A -> B, does not [i]necessarily imply[/i] C! This is the major stumbling point, and is in fact a fallacy. If something has no functionality and is complex, and becomes totally useless and unfunctional along with the detach part, that says or implies what about how it came to be? Nothing. True here would be to say one possible explanation [i]could[/i] be that it had an intelligent designer or was planned. But that it is not the only explanation (random chance could be another, for example). As long as there is any remote possibility of another explanation, then it is not plausible to state or logical to state that it then must be only one specific thing and no other without providing evidence to the contrary that supports that one AND discredits all others. As such, ID does not even make it into the Theory stage - it is at best only a postulation (and a shakey one, at that). [url=http://faq.ozoneasylum.com/397/]WebShaman[/url] \| [i]The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities. - Sophocles[/i] [small](Edited by [url=http://www.ozoneasylum.com/user/925]WebShaman[/url] on 11-20-2007 15:00)[/small] Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu