What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison?
In general an ID supporter does not first prove the existence of a deity and then from that point progress to evidence of intelligent design of the universe. Instead they tend to point at a earthly phenomenon and proclaim that it could only have been created by an intelligent entity, and from that point conclude that their preconceived beliefs are supported. Bear with me as I spell out this logical argument:
Premises:
1) There are things in the world which are natural, and things which are designed.
2) Humans are capable of distinguishing with a high degree of accuracy between natural things and designed things.
Logic:
1) ID supporter declares an example thing which most consider to be naturally occurring to be designed.
Conclusion:
1) Everything that exists was designed.
Most discussions get hung up on disproving the "logic" portion of the debate, even ignoring the logical leap that the example cited is representative of the whole of reality (Inductive Fallacy). I would instead like to focus on the crucial fact that the proposed conclusion disproves the premise itself. *IF* the entirety of creation was designed then there are no natural occurring things with which to be distinguished from designed things. Therefore the declaration of an ID supporter that something was clearly designed inherently contradicts their proposed conclusion.
Hence my question: If you believe that everything was intelligently designed, what is your basis of comparison?
Edit: "Therefore the declaration of an ID supporter that something was clearly designed inherently contradicts their proposed conclusion."
I suppose I got a bit wordy here, what I was trying to say is this: By making this argument an ID supporter is assuming something in their argument that they ultimately conclude to be false, making the entire argument invalid.
The logic is sort of like this:
1) A and B exist, and can be distinguished.
2) B is distinguished in one case.
3) Therefore, B in all cases.
My point is not that one instance of B cannot be extended to the whole of creation. My point is fundamental to logical argument itself; if you disprove a premise of a logical argument then the argument collapses. In the above arguments the first premise, if true, makes it impossible to reach the conclusion through valid logic.
What I am interested in is how an ID supporter avoids this problem in their arguments.
Edited by Phage0070, : Clarity