Building on Dr. Swamidass’s definitions of IC (irreducibly complex) systems, I wanted to get some feedback for an argument for intelligent design from IC3 systems (defined as "systems too complex (somehow) to evolve by known natural processes alone (e.g. the best current understanding of evolutionary science)). This is my first post so I’m not sure what the syntax for blockquoting is.
- The origin of complex biological system A could only have arisen from intelligent design, known natural processes, or unknown natural processes.
- Known natural processes are insufficient to explain the origin of A (i.e. A is an IC3 system).
- Unknown natural processes are unlikely to explain the origin of A.
- Intelligent design is a plausible explanation for the origin of A.
- Therefore, intelligent design is the most likely explanation for the origin of A.
Do you think a person can be rational to believe in intelligent design on the basis of this argument provided they had intellectual warrant for the truth of the premises? And if so, which premises do you think are the most difficult to defend?