Proof of ID: An essay (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, June 25, 2015, 15:51 (3439 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Everyone here knows I believe in intelligent design (ID). The following essay explains that viewpoint. Basically we know when something is designed, like Paley's watch. Can anyone find something wrong with the argument presented?:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/must_we_directl097021.html-QUOTE: “We don't logically require prior evidence that an intelligent agent existed in order to detect design, because the designer's existence is shown by the natural structures it made, which resemble things that in our experience come only from intelligence. To detect design, all we need is (a) to know the kinds of things that intelligent agents produce, and then (b) to find such things in nature. That is observable evidence of an intelligent designing agent, even if you don't directly observe the agent with your eyes, or even if you didn't have prior knowledge about whether the intelligent agent existed."-In the first quote, the author picks on campfires, buildings and technology as examples, none of which are “natural structures”. That is how we deduce the agency of human (or hypothetical ET) designers. I myself once used the example of a wine glass in the desert. However, we do not know the origin of natural structures, and unlike the products of our own intelligence, there is no precedent by which to judge whether they result from intelligent design or simply look as if they have been designed (Romansh's snowflake makes the point). The ID argument might be compared to David's refusal to contemplate the possibility that bacteria are intelligent: they may look intelligent, he says, but they are not. Individuals may have their own favourite theory, but we are once again back to our three possible sources of natural "design": divinity, chance, a form of panpsychism.