Is intelligent design really an "argument from ignorance" logical fallacy as athiests claim?

It is spelled A T H E I S T

Of course ID is complete fallacy. There is so much evidence for evolution I don't even begin to list it nowadays.

ID is a convoluted mechanism based on the heart-felt (but wrong) assumption that something complex (life) must be made by something more complex (a god), eg computers made by humans. This is why the bible-writers got it back to front, and why IDers are so convinced they are right. But they are wrong. Evolution works like a calculator. It can do hugely complex tasks but it has no understanding of what it does.

That's not exactly a logical fallacy. It's a specious argument, which is something else. And this particular one is definitely something else! ID is not, in fact, the simple claim that God designed us. It is an attempt to clothe that claim in logical-seeming argument and then pretend that it is somehow "scientific" although it lacks any use of testable hypotheses. The "designed for our purposes" notion avoids the basis of evolution: the "random changes" are not equally competitive, and natural selection determines which variations in design are most suitable for the environment. When the environment changes, the definition of "most suitable" changes as well, resulting in extinction of some species and emergence of new ones capable of exploiting the new environment. The "evidence" for ID, as clearly expressed by this person, consists in one thing: an inability or willful inclination to follow the evidence for evolution.

"Is intelligent design really an "argument from ignorance" logical fallacy..."?

It's not even an argument; it can't be discussed; it's set in the concrete of Genesis.

An Index to Creationist Claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

"Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's New page for the latest changes."

AronRa: Gods and magic are the most simplistic excuses ignorant primitives have ever imagined to explain anything.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/05/the_...

~

Why don't you make your own argument instead of referring to links?

Yet again we hear about the concept of irreducible complexity, which has been refuted to death by scientists. First the bacterial flagellum is supposed to be irreducibly complex, then it's discovered an another bacterium uses a reduced version of it as a poison stinger. Then we have claimed irreducible complexity in blood-clotting, which is again demonstrated to work with some species even when parts of the process are missing. Each and every of these specific claims have been scientifically refuted, but the IDiots just hit "ignore" and move on to the next claim. And when they run out of claims, they just start from the beginning from the already-debunked ones.

You should watch the Dover Trial -documentary on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohxDRhji0C0

seriously, im with talker, make your own point rather then linking elsewhere.

ID has published NOTHING in terms of scientific output. somethings they claim is ID is information science which is merely natural patterns.

despite it being worth millions, they just go for publicity, they dont fund scientific ventures for ID because it is so very unscientific.

not only that, but the link you give me in its long answer QUOTE MINES.

im not going to read the rest if it quote mines.

from

//IF it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.//

they left out the rest.

//IF it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to the theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we take an organ common to all the members of a class, for in this latter case the organ must have been originally formed at a remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.//

seriously, thats a crappy link, they use scientific words without the science.

Many intelligent design proponents do use the argument from ignorance fallacy. That link claims that the Irreducible Complexity argument does not fall within that fallacy, but I don't agree.

Even a creationist can't totally disregard evolution. After all, where did the creator come from? Logic says, he must have evolved. This logic doesn't disregard the belief that he created our Earth or the things in it. It's a BIG universe, so I doubt we're his first or last creation, just as I doubt that The Creator was the only thing that came out of the evolution process.

Instead of referring to a biased web site, I suggest you look up the Dover, PA trial.

ID does not qualify as science. This from Judge Jones, presiding judge (and Bush appointee) at the Dover trial:

"...ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial

Only in terms of trying to inject it into a Science curriculum; it is a fair argument in Philosophy. The ignorance comes from not knowing the difference between the definitions of scientific theory and philosophical theory.

People think everything was "intelligently designed" only because of earth. Since everything works out fine for earth everything else is "intelligently designed"...? Sorry, but Pluto is too far to support life and Mercury is too close. Nothing else is really "perfect". Life adapted to its surroundings not the other way around.