Intelligent design
Out of context: Reply #651
- Started
- Last post
- 690 Responses
- discipler0
danthon, the word for this line of reasoning is "dysteleology". The flawed notion of pointing to apparent "bad" design in biological systems as proof of no designer. It makes a number of errors...
- Never provides an absolute standard of perfection in order to determine if something is "bad" design. A perfect standard is required. Otherwise assumptions are unwarranted.
- Relating to the first point, how do we know that the designer did not implement limitations for better of the overall system? Any engineer will tell you that certain parts of machines/motors are configured sub-optimally so that other parts of the system can function better. Purposed limitations.
- Relating to the previous point. How do we know that the overall ecosystem will not be severely damaged if limitations were not in place? If a predatory animal were perfectly efficient, it would cause it's pray to be extinct and thus the predator becomes extinct. Where's the standard for this measurment?
- It is a theological argument to say that the designer is unintelligent, not a scientific one.
- Dysteleology ignores the scientific laws of thermodynamics which demonstrate that the universe is running out of useful energy and things become less efficient and break down.