From Uncommon Descent. (IC = irreducible complexity, FSCI = functional specific complex information)
Excerpt:
First, ID is not, as its opponents suggest, a purely negative argument that material forces are insufficient to account for IC and FSCI. At its root ID is an abductive conclusion (i.e., inference to best explanation) concerning the data. This conclusion may be stated in summary as follows:
1. Living things display IC and FSCI.
2. Material forces have never been shown to produce IC and FSCI.
3. Intelligent agents routinely produce IC and FSCI.
4. Therefore, based on the evidence that we have in front of us, the best explanation for the presence of IC and FSCI in living things is that they are the result of acts of an intelligent agent.
The second reason the “argument from ignorance” objection fails is that the naysayers’ assertion that ID depends on an “absence of evidence” is simply false. In fact, ID rests on evidence of absence. In his Introduction to Logic Irving Marmer Copi writes of evidence of absence as follows:
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
How does this apply to the Neo-Darwinian claim that undirected material forces can produce IC and FSCI? Charles Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859. In the 152 years since that time literally tens of thousands of highly qualified investigators have worked feverishly attempting to demonstrate that undirected material forces can produce IC and FSCI. They have failed utterly.
Has there been a reasonable investigation by qualified investigators? By any fair measure there has been. Has that 152 year-long investigation shown how undirected material forces can account for IC or FSCI? It has not.
Therefore, simple logic dictates that “it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof” that undirected material forces can account for IC and FSCI as “positive proof of its non-occurrence.”
The argument from intelligent design is based on what we know. The hope that biological information has a naturalistic cause is based on what we don’t know. As science progresses, the evidence for intelligent causes in biology becomes more clear.
Related posts
- Is the set of 20 amino acids used in living systems finely tuned?
- Biologist expresses doubts about the sufficiency of Darwinian mechanisms
- Stephen C. Meyer in FOUR John Ankerberg online videos
- Should adherence to intelligent design be grounds for not hiring a professor?
- ID theorist responds to critics of the design of the bacterial flagellum
- Should ID researchers be “marked down” for defending intelligent design?
- Walter Bradley explains three scientific arguments for God’s existence
- How the science teachers lobby misrepresents intelligent design
- Can intelligent design be front-loaded at the creation of the universe?
- Harvard astrophysicist backs the Rare Earth hypothesis
- Ho-hum… more pro-intelligent design peer-reviewed papers
- Eighteen peer-reviewed scientific publications that support intelligent design
- Pro-ID scientist Ann Gauger interviewed on Mike Behe’s latest paper
- Angus Menuge on methodological materialism and the search for truth
- Assessing the evidence in favor of common ancestry
- Philip E. Johnson lectures on science, evolution and religion
- Robin Collins explains why fine-tuning is necessary for life
- How can you tell whether something is designed or not?
- How do proponents of Darwinian evolution respond to debate?
WINTERY KNIGHT 