ID Paper

[Sephirius]

I'm posting this because I'm really desperate for ideas here. I need to write a paper (1500 wds) with this as the assigned topic "Michael Behe believes in ‘intelligent design’. Richard Dawkins doesn’t. Who is right?"

So far I only really have two points, I need three for a 'proper essay format'.

Logical errors in Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments
(most stuff fits in here)

Irreducible Complexity isn’t really irreducible
(Behe argues from this standpoint)


Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Outright lies, deception, manipulation of the general population could make up a 3rd point.

The assigned topic tittle could use a little work too. It should be:
"Michael Behe believes in ‘intelligent design’. Richard Dawkins accepts that evolution occurs as a fact. Who is right?"
But you don't have a choice on the matter.

[Twoyboy]

Firstly, I think that's one of the worst essay questions I've ever seen. Way too vague, in my opinion.

I wouldn't give a section to all logical errors. It'd be way to big if you did it justice. Choose one or two and specifically state that you're only choosing one of two.

The second section is a fallacy section in itself - God of the Gaps, so it ties into the first.

I know it wasn't mentioned in the question, but I'd make the third section evidence for evolution. ID results in an "anything can happen" set of results. The fact that we don't see this and evolution seems to explain all life would starkly contrast the believe that an omnipotent figure could create anything it wanted to, unless it wanted to make it look like evolution occurred.

[Superman]

I just listened to a free podcast you can get from Itunes where some skeptic type interviewed Behe. It quickly becomes obvious that he's not playing with a full deck. If that would help, I could tell you how to subscribe to it.

By the way, you might not want to attack creationism, since Behe isn't a creationist.

[Feil]

Oh dear god. Five-paragraph-essay, or do you actually have a little freedom in format?

Introduction: frame argument (what ID is and what it wants to be) and state thesis (I will demonstrate that Intelligent design is full of shit.)

P: Explain what a scientific theory is.
P: Demonstrate that ID is not a scientific theory
P: Even if ID were a theory, it argues irreducible complexity, but poses a complex, sapient designer. Hence it is full of shit.
P: Even if that wasn't the case, irreducible complexity is bullshit, and here's why.
P: Behe is a lying scumbag who either deliberately uses long-refuted examples to bamboozle a gullible public or is so fantastically stupid he doesn't bother doing research before selling his book.
P: ID claims that the "designer" is "intelligent". Why do I have a FUCKING APPENDIX? (Why do I pass solid and liquid matter through the same hole I need for breathing? Why does the "pinnacle of creation" have the most abysmally badly designed hips for childbearing of the entire primate order?
P: Even if ID weren't full of shit and actually did a good job of explaining the facts, it would still be worse than Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection because of Occam's Razor. (What is the difference between a designer that does everything exactly as the ToEbNS predicts and no designer at all?)

Conclusion: Yes, in fact, ID is full of shit.

[Sephirius]

The ideas are good, I still need 3 points though D:


As to the poor wording of the topic, here are the other assigned topics that we may choose from.
I chose the aforementioned one because once I have 3 points, I can rant on for ages about them.


# Eco-feminists are environmentalists and feminists. What schools of eco-feminism are there? What do they have to offer?
# Ethanol, methanol, and bio-diesel offer some hope at preventing global warming. Still, nobody uses them. Why not? Do serious research—don't hand in a simple opinion piece. Consider what effects their development might have on world politics.
# Michael Behe believes in ‘intelligent design’. Richard Dawkins doesn’t. Who is right?
# Does fair trade work?
# Respond to Rauch's essay "Global Warming: The Convenient Truth".
# Kuhn is one of the most widely cited authors of the 20th century. What implications does his view have for a controversial subject like, for example, sharia law?
# Which is better for reducing greenhouse gases: cap and trade, regulation, or carbon taxes? Why? What are the political ramifications likely to be?

[Sephirius]

Oh dear god. Five-paragraph-essay, or do you actually have a little freedom in format?

Introduction: frame argument (what ID is and what it wants to be) and state thesis (I will demonstrate that Intelligent design is full of shit.)

P: Explain what a scientific theory is.
P: Demonstrate that ID is not a scientific theory
P: Even if ID were a theory, it argues irreducible complexity, but poses a complex, sapient designer. Hence it is full of shit.
P: Even if that wasn't the case, irreducible complexity is bullshit, and here's why.
P: Behe is a lying scumbag who either deliberately uses long-refuted examples to bamboozle a gullible public or is so fantastically stupid he doesn't bother doing research before selling his book.
P: ID claims that the "designer" is "intelligent". Why do I have a FUCKING APPENDIX? (Why do I pass solid and liquid matter through the same hole I need for breathing? Why does the "pinnacle of creation" have the most abysmally badly designed hips for childbearing of the entire primate order?
P: Even if ID weren't full of shit and actually did a good job of explaining the facts, it would still be worse than Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection because of Occam's Razor. (What is the difference between a designer that does everything exactly as the ToEbNS predicts and no designer at all?)

Conclusion: Yes, in fact, ID is full of shit.

Thanks, you're a lifesaver.
Time to get crackin'!

[Singular Intellect]

Don't forget to include the fact that trying to explain complex life by introducing a entity of vastly more sophistication capable of designing the entire universe simply makes the problem that much more difficult to explain.

[Darth Wong]

I'm posting this because I'm really desperate for ideas here. I need to write a paper (1500 wds) with this as the assigned topic "Michael Behe believes in ‘intelligent design’. Richard Dawkins doesn’t. Who is right?"

So far I only really have two points, I need three for a 'proper essay format'.

Logical errors in Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments
(most stuff fits in here)

Irreducible Complexity isn’t really irreducible
(Behe argues from this standpoint)

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I don't think it's beneficial to argue that you can reduce Behe's examples of irreducible complexity, because there are millions of species out there and he can simply look for another one, challenge you to explain that one, ad infinitum. You can point that out yourself. The real problem is the underlying logic beneath intelligent design, which looks like this:

"If we do not understand something, then it cannot be of natural origin."

That is a gigantic fallacy. Application of this "logic" to any of a number of points in the past would have led to completely absurd results, like "the Sun is being powered by an intelligent designer because we don't understand nuclear fusion yet."

Of course, you say you want three points, so here are two more pieces of "logic" buried in the intelligent design argument:

"Incredible complexity is a hallmark of intelligent design". In fact, human designers strive to make their designs as simple and elegant as possible, using a minimum number of parts to achieve any particular design goal. An incredibly over-complicated design is usually a sign of a designer who had no idea what he was doing, or something that was jury-rigged together. Complexity is actually an indicator of the sort of jury-rigged pseudo-design that results from natural evolution, not conscious design.

"If there's a missing link, then evolution theory fails." This is like saying that the theory of human heredity fails if you can't account for your ancestors to the tenth generation. An incomplete record doesn't mean that the theory of heredity has been demolished, any more than an incomplete fossil record means that the theory of evolution has been demolished. Most creatures are not fossilized; it is actually very rare for intact fossils to be found because animals scavenge corpses. Or to put it another way, nothing about the theory of evolution predicts a complete fossil record, so the absence of one does not represent a failed prediction.

[wautd]

Don't forget to include the fact that trying to explain complex life by introducing a entity of vastly more sophistication capable of designing the entire universe simply makes the problem that much more difficult to explain.

But, but... an ID fucktard told me this designer is outside our universe, so that doesn't count. Offcourse, he didn't backed up his claim, let alone give evidence so you just have to take it on faith

[Singular Intellect]

Don't forget to include the fact that trying to explain complex life by introducing a entity of vastly more sophistication capable of designing the entire universe simply makes the problem that much more difficult to explain.

But, but... an ID fucktard told me this designer is outside our universe, so that doesn't count. Offcourse, he didn't backed up his claim, let alone give evidence so you just have to take it on faith

Since the definition of the universe is "all that exists", 'outside the universe' is really just a stupid way of saying 'outside of existence'. Ergo, anything defined as outside of the universe is the same definition as defining something that doesn't exist at all.

It's an arguement that is as totally useless and meaningless as "before time".

[Darth Wong]

I would also add one more note about the psychology of ID: people believe in it and many similar "unexplained mysteries" explanations because they find the answer "We don't know yet" to be unsatisfying. But in many cases, "We don't know yet" is the only correct answer. We must choose answers which are logically justifiable, not because they are emotionally satisfying.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Don't forget to include the fact that trying to explain complex life by introducing a entity of vastly more sophistication capable of designing the entire universe simply makes the problem that much more difficult to explain.

But, but... an ID fucktard told me this designer is outside our universe, so that doesn't count. Offcourse, he didn't backed up his claim, let alone give evidence so you just have to take it on faith

If the designer is outside our universe, the argument still applies, because that designer had to come from somewhere within its own universe of existence. Additionally, if it existed outside of our universe, we would be able to detects its intrusions into our universe, what with it having to poke a hole in space time, which would probably release an amount of energy that is so massive I cant comprehend the number of zeros you see before you get to say "joules"

[Ted C]

I'm posting this because I'm really desperate for ideas here. I need to write a paper (1500 wds) with this as the assigned topic "Michael Behe believes in ‘intelligent design’. Richard Dawkins doesn’t. Who is right?"

Start from "Which theory makes a testable prediction?"

I think you'll find that ID theory doesn't make any predictions and is therefore untestable.

Evolution theory makes many predictions, which experiments and subsequent observations have generally found to be correct. Where they were incorrect, the theory has been updated to take into account the new discoveries (something that never happens to ID theory).

[Fire Fly]

You should just tackle Behe's main point, that if a biological system is irreducibily complex, it must have a designer; his most famous example is of course the bacterial flagella. Luckily for you, Ken Miller has already synthesized a good argument against this.

[Fire Fly]

Another good argument against Behe's main argument which shows that evolution can actually lead to irreducibly complex biological systems.

[Ted C]

By the way, you might not want to attack creationism, since Behe isn't a creationist.

Oh, he's a creationist alright; he just doesn't want to admit it.

Creationism is the belief that a deity created the universe and life. ID is just a flavor of creationism that makes allowances for an old earth and the appearance of natural evolution.

[Vehrec]

The ideas are good, I still need 3 points though D:

Ahahaha, stupid writing guidelines that people tell you to throw away and never come back to in University. Man, I missed you guys. You 'need' three points like you 'need' another head. If you REALLY want to do it that way, here are my thoughts.

1. ID is the product of the Discovery Institute, which is devoted to turning America into a fundamentalist state. Quote the Wedge Document, and use it for shock value.

2. Charles Darwin was educated in an ID framework, his only naturalism textbook was 'Natural Theology' by Richard Payle, which made the Irreducible complexity argument long before Behe was born. Darwin rejected 'Natural Theology' outright.

3. ID is an argument from ignorance, only able to attack areas poorly explored by science, or so cutting edge that they have not yet been fully mapped. These areas are obscure and often tricky to explain even among scientists, let alone laypeople.

[DPDarkPrimus]

This book would be my recommended reading to you. It completely takes apart Dembski and Behe's arguments as well as other more general ID arguments.

Among other things, it has a couple essays on evolution of irreducibly complex organs, including one specifically on the evolution of flagellum.