On Telic Thoughts, Mike Gene presents an interesting but fallacious argument
If MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, does MN then mean we must explain this all “without reference to supernatural beings or events?”
What does reference to the supernatural explain? Everything and thus nothing. And notice that MN has not failed here, so unless Mike wants to argue that if in addition to these findings, science cannot explain these data that somehow ‘supernatural design’ becomes more likely then he clearly does not understand the scientific method. Why should our ignorance be seen as evidence for something which we cannot observe?
What makes a supernatural God a better explanation that the purple unicorn or Santa Claus? Or even an extra-terrestrial? Should we at least not wait until we can reject extra-terrestrial sources? Why jump to the conclusion of the ‘supernatural’?
Hypotheses do not gain strength from the weakness of others, especially when the hypothesis itself lacks much of any explanatory value beyond. Poof…
So what can we conclude from Mike’s story? That the earth is 6000 years old, that science cannot explain how life evolved, that there was a global flood and that this history was captured to some extent in oral and later written form.
Now let’s turn this around. Does Mike accept the counter argument that a supernatural entity has been disproven because the data do not match the written word?
So why should this give any credibility to the supernatural?
The fact that ID is scientifically vacuous?
Of course, Mike’s story not only is logically flawed but also disproven by the facts.
Time to wake up…
And yet, ID proponents on Telic Thoughts still have not realized that IC is an argument from ignorance. ID remains scientifically vacuous because it relies on the gap approach.
ID tries to wrap its claims in statements which attempt to give it the appearance of scientific respectability but on closer scrutiny, the “basic and simple premise” of IC is unsupportable.
As Aagcobb points out, ID is not only scientifically vacuous but theologically risky
Onething says: “Why assume God acts outside the laws of nature?”
Good question. But this, in fact, is exactly what IDists do; assume that natural evolution cannot account for the diversity of life on earth, so God must intervene in the universe to somehow design it, using an undetectable method. If thats not magical thinking, I don’t know what is.
Joe G’s comment to Aagcobb exemplifies the appeal to personal incredulity, and the gap argument when it comes to IC
Joe G Wrote:
I will tell you what Aacobb, if you show us something in which the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components, and it wasn’t intentionally designed perhaps someone will listen to you.
In other words, when faced with something which appears to be designed and since we have no good alternative explanation, we should thus conclude that it must have also been designed.
So what about natural geysers as a counter example:
Three components must be present for geysers to exist: an abundant supply of water, an intense source of heat, and unique plumbing.