There seems to be a lot of confusion about creationism/intelligent design (which I will just shorten to ID) being part of science. These arguments for ID being part of science have many different wordings, come from diverse sources, but always posses the same core set of logical steps: 1. Scientific principle X cannot explain unknown Y. 2. This inability to explain Y lends credence to ID. This is horrible reasoning. Why? For several reasons. First, we can properly identify it as an argument from ignorance. 1. There is no positive evidence to support ID. 2. Poking hole or pointing out problems in legitimate science should count as support for evidence of ID. 3. ID is true. At no time is there any evidence presented for ID and so ID supports have nothing... absolutely zero... to offer. What theyre TRYING to do is insert god by a process of elimination. But a process of elimination only works if were left with a finite number of choices and all of the choices have been established as plausible. For example, we can say things like, Dave is either married or a bachelor (never married, divorced, widower). If we determine that Dave is not married, then of course we can conclude that hes a bachelor because these are the only two legitimate choices. It makes sense because we already know through evidence that there isnt a third state of being beyond married or bachelor. Its one or the other. On the other hand, if we said something like, Dave got his money from winning the lottery or from finding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Dave didnt win any lotteries. So the only way we can explain his money is from finding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. This is utter nonsense because there are so many other explanations for how Dave could have gotten rich. Hard work at a well paying job. Successful gambling. Inheritance. Striking it rich mining. The list goes on and on. If we rule out winning the lottery then we default back to we dont know how he got his money. Eliminating one explanation doesnt lend credence to any others. Its the same way with ID. If we poke holes in one explanation, we still need positive evidence for another explanation before we can take it seriously. So saying things like, There are holes in the fossil record doesnt support your argument. Its like saying, Dave never bought a winning lotto ticket. AT BEST it eliminates one hypothesis, but we still need positive evidence for ID otherwise were right back to We dont know. To be sure, its not, Either science did it, but if they cant explain it goddidit. Thats like saying, Either dave got his money from the lotto or he found magic gold. So please: as you post and reply to threads here... provide more positive evidence and fewer arguments from ignorance. :)
Posted on: Sun, 18 May 2014 15:39:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015