Faulty Logic of Creationists/IDers

[palmera]

While reading The God Delusion, I came upon a passage in which Dawkins aptly describes one of the major flaws of creationist/I.D. attacks against evolutionary theory. It centers on the "unfortunate" strategy of said opponents to point out gaps in scientific knowledge, then claim that Intelligent Design fills those gaps. For example, an IDer might take a particular part of an organism, claim that its irreducibly complex, and when a comprehensive answer is not immediately given, assert that evolutionary theory has been overthrown in favor of "God did it." There are many problems with this line of reasoning. First, it doesn't follow to argue that because a particular part of theory A fails, then theory B is correct. Furthermore, the driving force behind scientific inquiry is ignorance. Rather than assume B, that God did it through design, a scientist, driven by curiosity will take a critical approach and study said problem. Unfortunately, during the intermediate period, ID pamphlets will proclaim an organism to be IC (irreducibly complex) thus disproving evolution. As Dawkins states, "Intelligent Design -ID- is granted a Get Out of Jail Free card, a charmed immunity to the rigorous demands made of evolution."

This of course goes without saying that interjecting an intelligent supreme being into the mix is in itself faulty logic because it raises far more questions than it answers!

What do you think?

[Cogitoergosum]

i totally agree with you and richard dawkins on that. The GOD delusion is a great book that argues for atheism.
A question for the ID people:

We, believers in evolution due to natural selection, believe that not all mutations that happen lead to a more enhanced being, some of them just impedes the host, and the mutation will die with him as it did not confere any advantage for his survival. Examples of that are rampant and do not need proving. If evolution is indeed due to ID how do they account for the FAULTY mutations. I might understand their theory if all mutations were intelligently designed to enhance performance, but they are not. Is GOD an UNDERACHIEVER? he does not get it right the first time?

[Cathar1950]

They could say it is the fall and man's sinful nature that causes the errors. But I think the errors are what allow change and adaptations.
Of course this does not count the other life forms before man.
I don't know anything that is perfect.
So I sometimes wonder why we would expect God to be perfect. Mature or whole maybe but that would be by definition.
Now when God says "it is good" I think it means it works or suits its purpose.
But hey I think it is a myth.

[achilles12604]

i totally agree with you and richard dawkins on that. The GOD delusion is a great book that argues for atheism.
A question for the ID people:

We, believers in evolution due to natural selection, believe that not all mutations that happen lead to a more enhanced being, some of them just impedes the host, and the mutation will die with him as it did not confere any advantage for his survival. Examples of that are rampant and do not need proving. If evolution is indeed due to ID how do they account for the FAULTY mutations. I might understand their theory if all mutations were intelligently designed to enhance performance, but they are not. Is GOD an UNDERACHIEVER? he does not get it right the first time?

What would you say if I told you that Dawkins acknowledged the possibility of "GOD" in a debate with Francis Collins arranged and moderated by TIME magazine?

This is a fantastic debate. I highly recomend everyone reading through it.

COLLINS: Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.
DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God--it's that that seems to me to close off the discussion.
TIME: Could the answer be God?
DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.
COLLINS: That's God.
DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -9,00.html

[achilles12604]

While reading The God Delusion, I came upon a passage in which Dawkins aptly describes one of the major flaws of creationist/I.D. attacks against evolutionary theory. It centers on the "unfortunate" strategy of said opponents to point out gaps in scientific knowledge, then claim that Intelligent Design fills those gaps. For example, an IDer might take a particular part of an organism, claim that its irreducibly complex, and when a comprehensive answer is not immediately given, assert that evolutionary theory has been overthrown in favor of "God did it." There are many problems with this line of reasoning. First, it doesn't follow to argue that because a particular part of theory A fails, then theory B is correct. Furthermore, the driving force behind scientific inquiry is ignorance. Rather than assume B, that God did it through design, a scientist, driven by curiosity will take a critical approach and study said problem. Unfortunately, during the intermediate period, ID pamphlets will proclaim an organism to be IC (irreducibly complex) thus disproving evolution. As Dawkins states, "Intelligent Design -ID- is granted a Get Out of Jail Free card, a charmed immunity to the rigorous demands made of evolution."

This of course goes without saying that interjecting an intelligent supreme being into the mix is in itself faulty logic because it raises far more questions than it answers!

What do you think?

As far as I have been able to gather, the fundamental difference between Atheists and ID'rs such as myself, is the application of Ockhams (also spelled occams) Razor.

For the non-theists, God is not allowed to be a possibility in any equations. Therefore, something else must be the simplest answer. For the Theist, God is allowed as a possibility along with the other ideas. The theist therefore compares God's intervention into evolution to guide the process and mold the outcome against the zillion multiverse theory and finds (quite rightly) that God is a far simpler solution than a totally unknown theory with ZERO credible backing to it.

This is our fundi difference and this is exactly why we will never agree. Because the simple answer for the theist, isn't even allowed into the arena with the non-theist.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi achilles12604

As far as I have been able to gather, the fundamental difference between Atheists and ID'rs such as myself, is the application of Ockhams (also spelled occams) Razor.

Well that is quite a big difference that says much about what either side of the debate sees as acceptable criteria for an explanation.

However there is also another big difference. ID arguments often misuse big numbers. The ID argument form goes something like the probability of X occurring within nature and without intelligent design is some number like 10^400 against. Thus - the ID argument goes - design is far more probable than not.

However when the numbers are looked at more closely, it invariably shows that the ID argument fails to follow through on the math and leaves out a vital component. The missing component being the 10^400 type number being divided by all the alternative x possibilities occurring. Their math is bogus. So form where I'm sitting it is not the case that ID guys are just less parsimonious with their concepts, they get their math wrong.

On top of that evolution has a pretty powerful rationale which the ID guys (I've seen) fail to fully engage. The alternative logic, analogies, put forward as arguments against just don't stand up. It's like they are arguing against a straw man. Actually I think it goes deeper than that. It seems to me they wish/desire evolution to be weaker theory than it actually is. If I was to be harsh I'd say they are in denial.

[Cogitoergosum]

Achillees i have seen that, i never said there is definetly no GOD whatsoever, i said the probability of there being a GOD is tiny, since i cannot disprove he exist the possibility that he does exists is there. But the GOD of abraham does not exist, that's my point.

[achilles12604]

Hi achilles12604

As far as I have been able to gather, the fundamental difference between Atheists and ID'rs such as myself, is the application of Ockhams (also spelled occams) Razor.

Well that is quite a big difference that says much about what either side of the debate sees as acceptable criteria for an explanation.

However there is also another big difference. ID arguments often misuse big numbers. The ID argument form goes something like the probability of X occurring within nature and without intelligent design is some number like 10^400 against. Thus - the ID argument goes - design is far more probable than not.

However when the numbers are looked at more closely, it invariably shows that the ID argument fails to follow through on the math and leaves out a vital component. The missing component being the 10^400 type number being divided by all the alternative x possibilities occurring. Their math is bogus. So form where I'm sitting it is not the case that ID guys are just less parsimonious with their concepts, they get their math wrong.

On top of that evolution has a pretty powerful rationale which the ID guys (I've seen) fail to fully engage. The alternative logic, analogies, put forward as arguments against just don't stand up. It's like they are arguing against a straw man. Actually I think it goes deeper than that. It seems to me they wish/desire evolution to be weaker theory than it actually is. If I was to be harsh I'd say they are in denial.

However when the numbers are looked at more closely, it invariably shows that the ID argument fails to follow through on the math and leaves out a vital component. The missing component being the 10^400 type number being divided by all the alternative x possibilities occurring. Their math is bogus. So form where I'm sitting it is not the case that ID guys are just less parsimonious with their concepts, they get their math wrong.

Are the alternate possibilities you are referring to other theories like the string theory or the multi-verse? If these are the options which you "divide" by then there are two problems with you logic.

1) The huge numbers put forth only apply to the currently most accepted theory of the universe. If you chose to implement another, totally different option, such as the multi-verse, then the argument isn't divided. It ceases to pertain. It would no longer be applicable in many cases. This neither helps no hurts either of our cases. They would simply no longer play together. Apples and oranges.

2) If these are they other options you refer to, then scientists have a long way to go and a lot to discover since there is zero concrete evidence for any of these options. I'm not saying they are impossible. I am simply pointing out that all of what science has found so far, (red light, background radiation, et al) apply to this universe and only this universe. There simply is no information on any other theory which has been concocted. This is what leads many scientists (yes even secular ones) to conclude that these other theories are pseudo-science not worthy of exploration.

A final factor which should be considered, is even if the standard non-theist argument is "well science is still learning so we will someday find something to explain all of this." I would point out that there is just a likely of a chance that science will uncover further, more concrete evidence for God as not. So the "wait and see" argument can work just as well for God as against him.

So we are left with ID and its huge numbers which are countered by a multitude of totally unproven and founded hypothesis' any of which could end up supporting God even more depending on what science finds in the future.



Now . . . if I totally missed what you were referring to as "other options" then feel free to ignore everything I wrote about and please elaborate.


PS - ID'rs (at least all the ones I read regularly) accept evolution. So I don't understand how your last paragraph is valid.

[achilles12604]

Achillees i have seen that, i never said there is definetly no GOD whatsoever, i said the probability of there being a GOD is tiny, since i cannot disprove he exist the possibility that he does exists is there. But the GOD of abraham does not exist, that's my point.

This is an assumption which evolution/ID can neither prove nor disprove.

[Cogitoergosum]

Achillees i have seen that, i never said there is definetly no GOD whatsoever, i said the probability of there being a GOD is tiny, since i cannot disprove he exist the possibility that he does exists is there. But the GOD of abraham does not exist, that's my point.

This is an assumption which evolution/ID can neither prove nor disprove.

I don't deny GOD based on evolution only, the whole bible is not worth the paper it is written on for me. Just the faulty and sadistic logic of the god of abraham does not fit with my sets of ethics. Jesus tries to change the concept of the god of abraham but that doesn't make him divine, he tried to change the concept and make him more loving while still maintaining he is fulfilling his prophecy.