Intelligent design?
Do things ever occur that are unexplainable by science? This is almost Godel's incompleteness theorem: some things cannot be proven using the laws in any sufficiently complex system. The fallacy is always the same: what cannot be readily explained, is "unexplainable", therefore must have been performed by an intelligent action. Both of those steps are logical fallacies.
Underlying intelligent design is the idea that some things could not have occurred naturally. Eyes, flagella, DNA, are deemed to be statistically impossible to have arisen. The problem is that for every specific case where such an example is given by the creationists, it is possible to refute it. For example, a small part of a flagellum is still extremely useful to a bacterium. Evolution is a great theory, not because it is necessarily true (although it is overwhelmingly likely that it is), but because it can withstand such criticism, and win every time.
Intelligent designers are ill-informed to genuinely believe that evolution does not stand up to such tests. Intelligent design gives people the illusion of knowledge, because real science is hard. People think they are getting one over the scientists, and that what they know is somehow equal to, or is in some sense genuine knowledge. All they are really doing is giving ignorance credibility.
Show me someone who believes in ID, and I'll show you a hypocrite. These people benefit hugely from the advances in science and technology, yet constantly strive to undermine science. Not one biologist or biochemist believes in ID, yet supporters of ID are not beyond taking life-saving medicines from these people when it suits them.
Do things ever occur that are unexplainable by science? This is almost Godel's incompleteness theorem: some things cannot be proven using the laws in any sufficiently complex system. The fallacy is always the same: what cannot be readily explained, is "unexplainable", therefore must have been performed by an intelligent action. Both of those steps are logical fallacies.
Underlying intelligent design is the idea that some things could not have occurred naturally. Eyes, flagella, DNA, are deemed to be statistically impossible to have arisen. The problem is that for every specific case where such an example is given by the creationists, it is possible to refute it. For example, a small part of a flagellum is still extremely useful to a bacterium. Evolution is a great theory, not because it is necessarily true (although it is overwhelmingly likely that it is), but because it can withstand such criticism, and win every time.
Intelligent designers are ill-informed to genuinely believe that evolution does not stand up to such tests. Intelligent design gives people the illusion of knowledge, because real science is hard. People think they are getting one over the scientists, and that what they know is somehow equal to, or is in some sense genuine knowledge. All they are really doing is giving ignorance credibility.
Show me someone who believes in ID, and I'll show you a hypocrite. These people benefit hugely from the advances in science and technology, yet constantly strive to undermine science. Not one biologist or biochemist believes in ID, yet supporters of ID are not beyond taking life-saving medicines from these people when it suits them.
Comments