Are there any logical arguments for intelligent design?
Yes
Side Score: 5
|
 |
No
Side Score: 2
|
|
|
|
|
Clarification may be needed as terminology matters here. If someone means by 'logical' a logically valid argument, that is the conclusion follows from the premises, then yes someone can make a logical argument for intelligent design. Having a valid argument structure does not mean that the outcome is factual though as the premises or warranting statements may not be factual themselves. Example: All old gorilla keepers are good tempered. All good tempered people ride bicycles. Therefore all old gorilla keepers ride bicycles. The argument above is logically valid, not so much factually valid though. You have a valid logical argument that is not sound. By any means though the notion of intelligent design certainly isn't scientific as it is not falsifiable. Side: Yes
1
point
Evolution. It allows for creatures to adapt to their environment, depending on the type of environment, thus, the designer doesn't have to waste time making sure his creations are suitable for the environment and can travel throughout the universe creating other civilizations. Side: Yes
|
There are a lot of logical arguments for stupid design- the physical fallibility of the human body (breathing/eating from one hole=suffocation) making it easy for us to needlessly die, which therefore leeches at the legitimacy that we were made by something "intelligent". Side: No
1
point
There are a lot of logical arguments for stupid design- the physical fallibility of the human body (breathing/eating from one hole=suffocation) making it easy for us to needlessly die, which therefore leeches at the legitimacy that we were made by something "intelligent". This line of reasoning appears to be confusing perfect design with intelligent design. Just because there are some minor setbacks does not mean the design, as a whole, is inadequate. If having those body parts next to each other was really a flaw in the design, then why has the population just continued to increase? If it was really as big a flaw as that line of reasoning is making it out to be, then the human population would be a lot smaller. So I think that that is a terrible argument for stupid design. Side: Yes
|
