Why would irreducible complexity logically lead to intelligent design?

Question

Michael Behe says, ". . . the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed."

Couldn't the opposite be asserted just as easily? "The fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to design, and therefore were naturally selected?" Why must evolution be held up to severe logical scrutiny, while the alternative -- a designer and creator -- is not?

If ID is to compete as a scientific explanation for life's origins, shouldn't it be required to justify the mechanism of the Creator's power? How exactly does a being design and create life? What chemical & physical steps are involved? Why aren't those valid scientific objections?

I don't agree that there are any truly "irreducibly complex" phenomena in nature, but if there were, I would argue that a designer could no more be postulated without evidence than a series of successive variations could be.

Proponents of Intelligent Design, how do you respond to that?

You might be right, Greg. Maybe I'll repost under Religion & Spirituality and see what response I get.

Answer 1

So that you won't be disappointed, I'll say that it can be a matter of scientific inquiry on whether or not an observed specimen or signal found in nature has its origins of sentient nature. Many scientists do in fact routinely make such inquiries, as for example archaeologists or paleontologists, who must make a deterimination if an found object is manmade. Even the entire SETI project is based on making a determination on whether a signal from outer space is of alien origin. Making such a determination is a non-trivial question: Given, for example, a signal or stream, how do we determine if sentience was involved? Mere existence of non-randomness isn't sufficient evidence of it, because many natural things generate quite non-random results . On the other hand, it's obvious that there are things that are clearly of sentient origin, so it's a worthwhile field of study as how to make this determination. So, "Intelligent Design" could be such a study, it does have many fruitful avenues of research, that could lead to many good or at least interesting applications, including proving the existence of God. Unfortunately, the current practitioners of ID have neither the understanding of scientific methodology or even the wherewithal to place it on a solid mathematical foundation to take it anywhere. If they had even remotely succeeded, their techniques would have already found use in a wide range of other fields of science, but ID is one of the least cited "fields" of science today, except by Creationism scientists.

Answer 2

I believe in Evolution as a theory for how life on earth is what it is now. Intelligent design was a response to mounting evidence towards the contrary. Evidence of Evolution is so widespread, it is almost scary.

Above much else, I do not like stubbornness. Hardcore Christian fundamentalists have a right to believe what they want, but sometimes, they take the bible too seriously. It is been wrong before as in with, Geocentricity vs. Heliocentricity and Stationary Continents vs. Moving continents.

Answer 3

You will get more rsponses in the religion forum. Proponents of ID don't want to provide any proof of anything. They want to find tiny questions still open in evolution and say: "See. It's not proven."

Answer 4

I Suspect you Will Get No Response to your Question.


Ben H, What I was Trying to Say is, they don't Have an Answer, and Know it.