This is my opening statement that I prepared for my debate with Laurence Tisdall. The debate should be available soon for all to see. Until then, here is my positive argument for why Intelligent design has no explanatory power at all. First of all, science is used to explain our reality the best that we can. Any explanation has to be able to describe and predict phenomena. If it can't do that, then it can't explain anything in our reality. Therefore, any explanation let alone the best explanation must be a scientific explanation. So the question is, is Intelligent Design a scientific explanation? No, it certainly is not. Any explanation must make sense of all existing data. If it doesn't then it has no hope of explaining things. Intelligent Design definitely does not make use of any of our existing data by ultimately just pointing to a causative agent that can't be observed or tested. We can't make any predictions about Intelligent Design. Natural processes are mechanistic so we know how they work now, how they'll work in the future, and how they have worked in the past. If this simple principle didn't hold true, then cell phones, cars, planes, computers...all of that wouldn't work.
Irreducible complexity doesn't account for a creator because irreducible complexity isn't an actual thing. It doesn't withstand the scrutiny of researchers. Bacterial Flagellum nor the eye are irreducibly complex. We have natural explanations for every structure that Intelligent Design would claim is designed. Natural processes negate the need for a designer.
Intelligent design cannot make any predictions or explain any existing phenomena. Like Giant and Red panda's pseudo-digit or Chromosome 2 in humans. Intelligent design can only say "well the designer wanted it that way." That is not an explanation and it doesn't allow for us to make predictions. That makes Intelligent Design have no explanator power whatsoever.
Subscribe to this channel:
Join the Skeptic Mafia:
Discord Server:
Intro by "Gonna Go For it":
0 Comments