Eclectic Floridian: Intelligent Design's faulty logic

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Intelligent Design's faulty logic

Intelligent Design proponents beliefs frustrate me when they try to force our public school children to consider science a subject that can be done based on invalid logic.

The IDers logic is summed up in the Latin phrase
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
That translates to: This happened after that therefore that caused this.

When IDers say that the universe is so complex it must have been intelligently designed, they are using Post Hoc logic.

That same line of logic proves that frogs are the offspring of mud. That is, the frogs showed up after the mud so the mud caused the frogs. Sorry, boys and girls, that just isn't scientific.

Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is a conclusion based on invalid logic. That's what happens when you try to do science based on conclusions that must be taken on faith.

For Intelligent Design to be a scientific theory it must follow proven scientific method:
  1. The ID conclusion must be approached as a Hypothesis.
  2. The Hypothesis must be proven using proofs that hold up to real-world facts, processes and events. The Hypothesis will then have become a Theory.
  3. The Theory must be published along with the proofs, evidence and methods used.
  4. The Theory must be reviewed by the scientific community for accuracy of facts, evidence, and validity of methods.
  5. If the proof is accepted by the scientific community (in general), only then can ID be accepted as science.


Blogger thoughtful said...

It seems you rely too much on the scientific community to tell you what is and what isnt. There are three realms of the known...the scientific known, the philosophic known, and the religious known. The binary side of these knowns are the scientific unknown, the philosophical unknown and the religious unknown. The scientific community will always have a population of millions of hypothesis before it. It will find the tools to prove less than 5% of this population. You will find that it has neither the will nor the means to prove the more difficult hypothesis. The existence of God is one of the more difficult hypothesis set before it. The scientific community will have to conclude that this task is too much it to handle. They will have to enlist the help of clear reasoning philosophers, and religionist with high standing spiritual antennas to help them in this task. The philosoper will grasp a philosophical understanding of God, but it is not enough, the religionist will sense the truth of God and even this is not enough, they will need Science to round out the more accurate picture. Science will probably have the tools to prove God in about a million years. Fortunately for you, you will have proof of God at death when you cut the ubilical chord to the material world. You will then realize that the so called scientific approach kept you retarted to the larger possibilities of the known and the unknown. You will realize that God is the known and the unknown, the whole and the particular. You will realize that the scientist sought to be guided by a flashlight that he directs, and foolishly thinks it is the only light, and it's light directs the only way. Hopefully you will not retard your progress because you decide to wait for scientist to guide and enlighten you in this new dimension.

I would like foryou and your scientific community to provide your proof that God does not exist. I hope you and yours do not believe that God is an anthopomorphic white man with a beard sitting atop a cloud...

11/09/2005 11:39 PM  
Anonymous EclecticFloridian said...

And God said; "Man, I gave you a brain ... USE it!"

11/10/2005 7:36 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home