Intelligent Design - Proof Positive?

Some confused opponents of ID continue to promote the idea that a disproof of random/deterministic origins (i.e. Darwinism) as the origin of life does not constitute proof for Intelligent Design. Oh really?

It is important to understand the structure of the complex-specified information filter, and its use as a deductive proof. It goes something like this (this is not a fully formal outline, but serves our purposes):

1. Assume all physical processes are either random, necessary, or designed;
2. Assume life originated in one of these processes;
3. Then life's origin must follow the behavior of whichever system caused it.

And

4. Assume it is proven that random processes produce complex, unspecified systems;
5. Assume it is proven that necessary processes (i.e. simple deterministic laws) produce non-complex systems;
6. Then by default the causal antecedent of life must be a designed cause.

Now it is important to point out that, as in the conference paper mentioned in the last blog, science bases its work on inductive logic. That is, the behavior of natural systems is observed and experimented upon, and generalities are made from these observations (proofs don't actually exist which tell us the behavior of these systems). However, these inductive points are then taken to be true and plugged into a deductive framework; the conclusion of the deduction is absolutely necessary so long as the inductive points are accepted.

Thus, if opponents of ID theory would like to contest the deductive conclusion, they CANNOT undermine it unless they do so by experimentally countering the inductive points. As long as you accept points 1-5, there is no argument.

So, next time a Darwinist reminds you that "disproving Darwinism doesn't prove ID" - ask them to actually explain how stochastic processes produce specified sequences, or how simple deterministic processes produce high-complexity specified sequences. They won't be able to do it, the deduction kicks in, and "yes, disproving Darwinism does prove ID."

-ExNihilo

P.S. On the use of the word "prove" - experimental science can't actually "prove" anything. That is left to those of us in mathematics. Nevertheless in the colloquial sense, its use here seems appropriate.