logical fallacies and Intelligent Design

Dear Discovery Institute,

Tonight we will explore a few more discrepencies in your science program. This post will add to some of my earlier discussions of your scientific claims. If you read some of my earlier blogs on here, you'll know that the whole "irreducible complexity" argument is essentially bogus. In previous blogs, I've addressed your stance (or lack thereof) on transitional fossils, highlighted errors in Behe's irreducible complexity, lampooned your complete lack of scientific peer reviewed journal articles, etc. Today, we're going to focus on other questions. First, where exactly does "design" take place in life? Is it everywhere where there is a gap in the fossil record? Is it at the origin of life (which means that evolution actually is a perfectly valid theory, and therefore, that your claim of Intelligent Design as an alternative to Darwinism is totally flawed; evolution happens regardless of a theory of abiogenesis. More on this later), or at some magic, undefined moment. Also, do you really believe that the "fine tuning" argument is a good argument for design in the universe? I will address both of these topics below.

So, where does design occur during the history of life? Is it truly wherever there is a gap or a massive shift in the fossil record? Is it at the moment of speciation? Is it at the origin of life? The first option, anywhere where there is a gap in the fossil record, is truly problematic for your theory. It necessitates a highly incompetent designer who must constantly meddle in its' creation by intervening to alter the course of life. This view is not any different than special creation, except that it makes even less sense. At least the argument from special creation tends to argue that God created all life in a week, and after the Flood, life on earth "evolved" from the "kinds" saved on the Ark. So at this point, if you are advocating for "Design" at every gap in the fossil record, you are pushing an even less scientific theory than Young Earth Creationism. The same is true for speciation. If the designer is constantly meddling in the development of life on earth, then how can we know anything about evolution (even microevolution)? Why not claim that microevolution is a sign of the designer at work? You are pushing a wholly unscientific idea here with this argument, if you choose to take this stance.

If you take the stance that "design" occurred at the origin of life, with the "creation" of DNA,then you are pushing a theory of abiogenesis, not a viable alternative to evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory takes no stand on the origin of life; natural selection only works on living, reproducing organisms. It cannot "create life from nothing". Life could have originated from a dropping left by my dog in the backyard yesterday (ignore the obvious logical fallacies there; I'm not proposing that argument as valid, but as an example), and even that would have no bearing whatsoever on natural selection and evolution in general. "Darwinism" is essentially the study of evolution by Natural Selection. If you are attempting to refute natural selection by proposing a theory of abiogenesis, that just won't work. Abiogenesis has no bearing on evolution. Sure, they're related, but science does not need a theory of abiogenesis for evolutionary theory to work.

Even in these two short paragraphs, the logical fallacies behind Intelligent Design are relatively easy to see. First off, you guys can't even provide us with a smoking gun for design...ie "Design happened THERE". If you argue that it happened at gaps in the fossil record, then your theory is already dead, both constitutionally and scientifically, as Creationism. If you argue that the moment of design happened at the origin of life, then you are not even providing evidence against Darwinism, or Natural Selection. The entire claim that Intelligent Design is a viable scientific alternative to Natural Selection is thus laid bare as the rubbish that it is. Come on guys! You can do better than this. If Intelligent Design is a valid alternative to Darwinism, then calling the origin of life the moment of design does not work, at which point, you must be referring to gaps in the fossil record as moments of design. Essentially then, we are looking at a theory of Special Creationism...ie ID as Creationism in disguise. Is it possible that you are just being overly vague because you don't have a scientific leg to stand on? Judging from my research, it seems that this is the case.

One last quick discussion. You guys seem quite fond of the argument that, since there is life on Earth, the universe must be designed for life. This argument makes the case that the laws that allow life as we know it to exist are so exact, that they could not have arisen by chance. This argument, while sounding convincing at first, is completely and totally false. If the laws of the universe were different, we wouldn't exist as we do. That is a good point. However, have you ever thought of the fact that since the laws of the universe are what we observe today, life originated as something that could survive in this particular "environment", and also was shaped through evolution by these laws? The laws of the universe are not evidence of a designer designing the universe so we could come into existence, but rather, evidence of the existence of the universe. You guys are either directly and purposely misleading the public, or are failing to fully understand this argument, by using the "fine tuning" argument as evidence for design.

To conclude this short post, we have seen A) that Intelligent Design itself, as an alternative to "Darwinism" does not have a leg to stand on, especially due to the inability of ID proponents to pinpoint moments of design, and B)that the "fine-tuned" argument for design is irresponsible, weak, and misleading. For the amount of money spent by the Discovery Institute in publicity, one would expect a much stronger scientific basis for the claims of this Institute and its members. Maybe we're looking at an attempt to forge a cultural revolution, rather than a scientific revolution, after all. The Wedge Document suggests that the Discovery Institute's goal is a return to a society based on Christian ideals. It suggests Intelligent Design as a "scientific" way to achieve this goal. Judging from the lack of science behind Intelligent Design, is it possible that the ID movement is a distraction meant to raise doubts in modern science and thus make it possible to achieve social change? Judging the nature off publicity stunts such as Expelled, one can infer that it really isn't about the science. Judging from the Wedge Document and the behavior of the Discovery Institute in general, it appears that the "scientific" endeavors of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture are nothing more than an attempt to push a specific religious agenda, that agenda being Christianity. The evidence is there; Intelligent Design appears to be nothing more than a psuedoscientic idea concieved to push a religious agenda. As evidenced in this post, the other posts on this blog, and through the work of the scientific community in general, INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE.