{"id":418,"date":"2005-08-24T05:36:57","date_gmt":"2005-08-24T05:36:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/archives\/418"},"modified":"2005-08-24T05:36:57","modified_gmt":"2005-08-24T05:36:57","slug":"intelligent-design-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/archives\/418","title":{"rendered":"Intelligent Design"},"content":{"rendered":"

Intelligent Design has two key arguments<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Evolution is not enough to explain the biological and chemical complexity found in living beings.<\/li>\n
  2. A reasonable hypothesis is that life was created by some “intelligence.”<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The first argument has been addressed by a number of people<\/a>, but it seems like the second argument has been largely dismissed since (just like Creationism or the Flying Spaghetti Monster<\/a> theory) it doesn’t have predictive power<\/a> and thus is a gut-feel rhetorical argument rather than a scientific theory. I think it should<\/i> be dismissed on those grounds when it comes to science classes, but what surprises me is how silly the rhetorical argument is as well.<\/p>\n

    Consider: Intelligent Design claims that life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligence, even though: <\/p>\n