Fallacy of intelligent design-circular reasoning.

Sorry for the hiatus-occupied as hell. Here's likely my last video on this stuff. Most "evidence" for ID commits a false dichotomy and/or argument from ignorance as it presents "negative evidence." This video shows why intelligent design is inherently circular reasoning whenever it tries to follow the scientific method or tries to find "positive evidence" for design, or claims to be doing "research" by studying "specified complexity" in living systems. By the end, hopefully, you'll see why it's illogical for ID to do "research" when looking for these "characteristics of intelligence", by concluding a non-life intelligence.

Music-Room of Angel, from the Silent Hill 4-The Room soundtrack (it's a video game). Piano version and the one performed by Mary Elizabeth McGlynn.

*Disclaimer*
Once again, this is not an attack on religion per se. It's a defence for science and logic. Oh, and please don't retort by claiming how "science commits circular reasoning too," then proceed to state how science claims "such and such", which is circular reasoning. Before you do that, look at the circular argument you're claiming that science makes. Now, try to find a reputed scientific source that actually makes that argument in question. You know, just to make sure people aren't bullshitting stuff and putting it in the mouth of science. And no, some dubious creationist website you likely read this off of is not a good enough source to be voicing what science is arguing. Until you do, please do yourself a favour and stop reading random, non-verifiable junk you find online and get a real education.

***FOOTNOTES***
Not enough space here. Please see my bulletins on my profile page.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Evolution
• Darwin
• Creationism
• Intelligent
• Design
• ID
• Circular
• Reasoning
• Begging
• the
• Question
• Science
• Logic
• Fallacy

[ATL45]

claiming a conspiracy theory is very unconvincing. the ENTIRE archaeological community is covering this up?

this sounds suspiciously like the creationist claim of a worldwide exclusion of their ideas.

it's just a little funny to me how some people will sooner believe that the entire world is out to get them before they'll consider the possibility that they might be wrong.

[powerstone2]

So true. "I'm not crazy. The rest of the world is crazy." lol

[ltinius1988]

As for the circular reasoning of creationism, your logic is internally flawed, What you have been illustrating in your video are examples of supposed IL that we know do not exist, because there is no evidence of such a thing, as a vampire of leprachaun or a zombie.

[powerstone2]

Well,you can't disprove the "nonexistence" of something.Disprove zombies!Honestly,there are people who use the same arguments to prove God to prove the existence of zombies. Next time to find a "proof" for God,sub the word vampire for God,and see how it turns out.

Vampires are living?They metabolize,produce heat,reproduce? How would you know?

IL is the only intelligence shown to exist,thus it's the only one you can logically observe the "characteristics" of,then find more IL elsewhere.

[powerstone2]

So tell me. Is the intelligent agent a living being? Mortal,imperfect,unforgiving? If it is a living being, then by all means, it's no longer circular reasoning. It's an infinite regression, and you'd disprove God creating life.

Again,ID MUST either be IL or NLI (these two choices are mutually exclusive and all-encompassing).Since choosing IL is infinite regression and NLI is circular reasoning, ID is thus inherently illogical.

[GuyThreepwoody]

Yes, we are all familiar with circular reasoning thanks!

God doesn’t exist because scientists say so, and we can trust them because they don’t believe in God…

[MrIntelligentdesign]

Irreducible complexity is not the definition of intelligence. See my videos for correct information.

[MrIntelligentdesign]

Irreducible complexity is not the definition of intelligence.

[DragonGreenFire]

@Shlontify "Science says science is the highest authority because it is "scientific" to do so!"

Science doesn't claim to be the highest athority.  Thats why the highest rank in science is 'Theory,' not 'Fact.' No one who knows how science really is ment to work would say that it is the ultumate athority. Also, by definition, it would be "scientific" to use science.

[yct1337]

@Shlontify cool you explained what circular reasoning is but you fail to understand how science works.

[Shlontify]

@yct1337 And science tells you that's the way you go, because science says so: that's circular reasoning.

[Shlontify]

Okay, but every claim to a highest authority MUST appeal ultimately to that authority for justification; to appeal outside of it is to undermine the "ultimate" authority of that authority. Science says science is the highest authority because it is "scientific" to do so! Those who believe in facts say "Facts are the way to go because FACTS have always been facts." Whether they hide it in long discussions or not, anyone who believes in a highest authority- appeals in circular fashion to it.

[BoundInChains]

I had this question in one of my examination papers.please help.

Which one of the following is an example of a circular argument?

1) God created man in his own image and man created God in his own image

2) God is the source of a scripture and the scripture is the source of our knowledge of God

3) Some of the Indians are great coz India is great

4) Rama is great coz he is Rama

[yct1337]

This guy says that science proves itself by saying it's science, that is incorrect, science proves itself by physical evidence and with this evidence we get a better idea of the subject and from that we develop new a hypothesis in an attempt to reach a theory and a theory is the best known explanation for the subject

[lukeg411]

Please people Check out William Lane Craig he debates leading atheist philosophers, Also Gary Habermas and others being stupid and circular is not a prerequisite for being a Christian