Here’s a review of a recent lecture by Michael Shermer by Doug Groothuis.
Shermer’s basic argument against ID was what he called “the argument from personal incredulity.”
1. X looks designed.
2. I cannot figure out how X could come about through natural causes.
3. Therefore, X was supernaturally designed.
[…]Shermer made many criticisms of creationism and ID (usually not differentiating them), but this argument was the backbone of his critique. It amounts to an endorsement of methodological naturalism: we can only appeal to material explanations in science that preclude any originating design. But Shermer’s argument is faulty for several reasons.
He goes on to explain three reasons why that argument fails.
And then here’s another argument from Shermer:
Shermer’s argument against the design inference is this: The Argument from the Presumption of Naturalism:
1. All scientific arguments must be based on naturalism.
2. ID appeals to causes not allowed by naturalism.
3. Therefore, ID is not scientific.
Shermer many times said that science (read: naturalism) is given enough time, it will explain what now seems difficult to explain (such as the Big Bang without God) or fine-tuning (without God). I have heard this so often, that I must dub it: The Post-dated check fallacy:
1. We cannot explain X naturalistically.
2. But give us more time and we will explain X naturalistically.
3. Therefore, we do not accept your ID explanation of X.
Are you seeing a pattern? Shermer has presupposed naturalism as a blind faith religion (which he never defends anywhere) and then uses his religion to twist science into supporting his blind faith in naturalism. I don’t mind that he is made happy by religion, but if he cannot support it with public evidence, then why bring it into the lab where the real science is happening? Why not not just keep his religion for the atheist equivalent of church, and leave scientists free to figure out how the world really works?
Click through to read the rest of the post (it’s worth reading).
- Debate between Stephen Meyer and Peter Atkins
- William Dembski debates Lewis Wolpert about intelligent design
- Peter Atkins claiming that nothing exists, (the physical universe is actually nothing)
- Richard Dawkins agrees that there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life
- Stephen Meyer debate against Michael Shermer on Lee Strobel’s TV show
Science’s war on the religion of naturalism
- Kalam cosmological argument
- Fine-tuning of cosmological constants
- Galactic, stellar and planetary fine-tuning
- Origin of the building blocks in the simplest replicating cell
- Origin of biological information in the simplest replicating cell
- Sudden origins of all major body plans in the 3-5 million year Cambrian explosion
- The development of irreducibly complex molecular machines