Argument for Intelligent Design from IC3 Systems

Right, it would be more in the realm of philosophy than science, which I think arguments for intelligent design already are.

I believe there are reasonable philosophical arguments for design, but if you mean IC3, this is not one of them. Invalid arguments are still invalid arguments in philosophy too.

1 Like

Apart from IC, what philosophical arguments for design in biology exist?

1 Like

In that case we have a huge amount of positive evidence non-intelligent natural processes can and have produced the biological phenomena we see and zero positive evidence anything in biology was Intelligently Designed. Based of those facts which explanation (natural or ID) is more plausible?

That’s an inductive argument, which is defeasible on a case by case basis. As the Sherlock Holmes quote goes: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Applying this to ID, if every competing explanation can be shown to be implausible, then you are rational to conclude design. Dr. Swamidass’s comment says that this doesn’t work because there’s no way to empirically demonstrate that any given explanation is right or wrong.

I see fine tune as good weak argument. The moral argument is a much stronger argument.

The problem is you can never totally eliminate the impossible without complete and perfect knowledge of everything in the universe. You’re doing lots of word-smithing but you’re still just offering “ID of the gaps”.

4 Likes

I’m not sure how fine-tuning or the moral argument can apply to ID in biology.

Right, which is why I suggested some kind of probability judgment, where you can conclude that competing explanations are not impossible, but improbable.

Well, if ID is the only remaining explanation, then it’s not really arguing from ignorance, is it? That’s what Premise 1 of the argument aims to establish.

How are you going to determine what is improbable with zero way to make any accurate probability calculations?

When you say it wins by default without any info on the other options it’s 100% an argument from ignorance

In philosophy, you can make non-mathematical epistemic probability judgments by considering a set of general criteria. For example, if Hypothesis A makes more unsupported assumptions than Hypothesis B, then we can roughly say that Hypothesis B is more probable than Hypothesis A because it is less ad-hoc.

If you follow the argument, you would only be able to say this after dismissing the other options, so it’s not an argument from ignorance.

Then go ahead and provide that information for the evolution of biological life. Please be sure to support any assumptions you make with the relevant scientific research and data. I’ll wait. :slightly_smiling_face:

James, do you realize that you’ve bought into something completely wrong here?

“IC systems cannot evolve” is merely a hypothesis. Behe does not express it that way, and it fools most of his fans. Do you see that it is only a hypothesis, but not stated as one?

What does IC have to do with evolution of biological life? The argument is just looking at the origin of particular biological systems.

Why think I bought into it? I’m merely formulating an argument using the concept of IC as a premise. I haven’t read Behe’s work so I don’t know how he presents the argument, but of course I recognize that “IC systems cannot evolve” is simply a hypothesis, and one that no one outside the ID camp really holds to.

OK, then go ahead and provide that information for the origin of IC systems. Please be sure to support any assumptions you make with the relevant scientific research and data. I’ll wait. :slightly_smiling_face:

IC3 structures are not evolvable by known natural process, by definition. That is how they are defined. However, we do not have a way of determining which (if any) structures fit in this category.

1 Like

I offer the spliceosome as a candidate :slight_smile:

Because you expressed it in the same way Behe does!

That’s not how we do real science.

Sure, as a premise that needs to be defended in order for the argument to go through. That says nothing about whether I agree with this premise.

Why not? I defined a class. No we can determine if objets fit in that class by testing hypothesis like “X is IC3.” Of course we have not found anything we can be certain fits in IC3.

@Mercer, your beef with Behe is that he equates IC1 = IC3, but that is not what I am doing here. IC1 is clearly not IC3.

I understand. But what’s the point scientifically? Have you seen this approach used anywhere in science?

1 Like