# Intelligent Design - evidence or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 14, 2006, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-evidence-or-not/372640 "2006-09-14T03:44:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-evidence-or-not/372640/21 "2006-09-14T16:24:57Z")
[QUOTE=daffyduck] The name of the logical fallacy in the OP is [Affirming the consequent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent) [/QUOTE] Right, and the premise, “There exists a God who favors life.” might easily be called a hasty generalization. ---
**Author:** ![Lil\_Crusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Lil\_Crusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lil_Crusher)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2006, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-evidence-or-not/372640/22 "2006-09-14T18:14:36Z")
I guess there’s nothing left for me to argue, you people completely destroyed Intelligent Design in a scientific context. This should prove useful when they visit me again. Thank you all for helping me understand the scientific method better. ---
**Author:** ![carterba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/85e7bf/32.png) [@carterba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carterba)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-evidence-or-not/372640/23 "2006-09-14T18:34:26Z")
[QUOTE=Lil’ Crusher] Theory - There exists a God who favours life. Prediction - If there is a God, life will exist. If there is none, life won’t exists. [/QUOTE] Even if we take the “theory” as an axiom, there is a problem: the second part of the prediction is not valid. This is an example of [denying the antecedent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent). Even given the existence of a God that favors life, there could still be other reasons that life exists. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2006, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-evidence-or-not/372640/24 "2006-09-14T22:29:57Z")
A couple more observations. If there were a creation science, then there could be a research program to work out the details. In fact the Templeton Foundation (which seems to use all its funds in an attempt to reconcile science and religion announced a research grant proposals to fund such research. There were no applicants. None of the so-called creation scientists had any research paradigm to offer. Another point about ID is that if I were designing humans, there are many places I could do better. For one thing, I wouldn’t have the birth canal going through the middle of the largest (or nearly so, I am not certain of this) bone in the body. I would have it go through the naval, the way I thought it did when I was 8 or 10 years old. Second, I would not have the optic nerve come out in front of the retina, but from the back, the way octopuses do. Third, I would lose the appendix. (Incidentally, if you are wondering why evolution doesn’t get rid of the appendix, one possible explanation is that an extra-small appendix is likelier to get infected than a normal one, I read somewhere.) I would do something about back problems. I would get rid of wisdom teeth. All sorts of kludges that you expect from evolution, but not from ID. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2006, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-evidence-or-not/372640/25 "2006-09-15T07:37:11Z")
[QUOTE=Lil’ Crusher] This should prove useful when they visit me again. [/QUOTE] I bet it doesn’t. Most of the reason that the whole ‘controversy’ over evolution exists is that lots of the people arguing against it do so loudly, and without regard to intellectual integrity - it’s actually quite easy to browbeat someone in a spoken debate, regardless of whether you’re telling the truth - look up Duane Gish for a classic example of this - he’s actually had a dishonest debating tactic named after him; the ‘Gish Gallop’ - he fires off a rapid series of questions that are either framed in such a way that they can’t be properly answered, or are sufficiently esoteric that his opponent would have to research them, interspersed with the rapid-fire questions are rapid-fire _assertions_ that are often totally false, but again, would require time, patience and understanding to answer properly. It’s quite a show, and the audience (often having been loaded with bussed-in supporters) is left with the false impression that Gish is incisive and right, and that his opponent is a stuttering ignoramus. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2006, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-evidence-or-not/372640/26 "2006-09-15T14:02:53Z")
[QUOTE=Lil’ Crusher] Theory - There exists a God who favours life. Prediction - If there is a God, life will exist. If there is none, life won’t exists. Observation - Life exists. Therefore, the theory seems to “work”. [/QUOTE] I didn’t see anyone give this a name, but this is just a classic example of reversing an implication. The writer confused a [Logical Implication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_implication) with a [Logical Equality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equality). Let us rewrite it this way: Let G = God’s existence, L = Life’s Existence Hypothesis: G-\>L && !G-\>!L Observation: L Conclusion: G Even if we assume that G-\>L && !G-\>!L has been proven, this is demonstratably false because, based on the truth table for logical implication, if L is true, G can be either true or false. What he probably meant was the following: Life exists if and only if God exists (this implies the second case, so its redundant) Let G = God’s existence, L = Life’s Existence Hypothesis: G\<-\>L Restated: G-\>L && L-\>G Observation: L Conclusion: G This is slightly more reasonable, in that IF the G\<-\>L is valid, and L is observed, then G must also hold true. However, this is simply a case of circular logic. He’s using the hypothesis (G\<-\>L) to prove the hypothesis (L, therefore G, therefore L\<-\>G). To make this logically valid, it would have to be stated as follows: Assume that Life exists if and only if God Exists. Assume: G\<-\>L Hypothesis: G Observer: L Conclusion: G This is logically valid; however, you’ve gone and made it more complicated because now you have to prove G\<-\>L in order to prove G. In other words, this is a complete waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2006, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-evidence-or-not/372640/27 "2006-09-15T14:45:11Z")
[QUOTE=Lil’ Crusher] Theory - There exists a God who favours life. Prediction - If there is a God, life will exist. If there is none, life won’t exists. Observation - Life exists. Therefore, the theory seems to “work”. What the hell? I can smell the fallacy, but I sure as hell don’t see it. [/QUOTE] I don’t know the specific name of the falacy, but the logic goes something like this Given: A - God Exists B - He favors life C - Life Exists We know C is true B must be true and can only be true if A is true **C does not necessarily require A to be true** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-evidence-or-not/372640.md?page=1)