ID: pg. 92 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
1-3 are unsupported assumptions, and the conclusion in 4 is simply a opinion based upon those unsupported assumptions.
If 4 IS correct then it necessitates a creation event at some point in the past (even if that was not on Earth). It also means that no creator can exist who wasn't him/her/itself designed.
If an non-designed creator can exist then 1 & 3 MUST be false.
The assertions are supported. They are supported by our current level of knowledge. Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agency. Also we have never observed nature acting alone do such. Therefore 1-3 are supported.
This is not correct.
Biological systems exhibit (apparently) these properties, but cannot be shown to be designed via an intelligent agency.
To suggest otherwise is cyclic.
RE: (2) requires such a laborious and philosophical dicussion of the nature of information that people here tend to get very bored and the threads get closed just when they start to become interesting
RE: (1) IC has (at some length) been shown to be insufficient to infer Intelligent Design. IC can come from evolutionary algorithms in which the 'design' comes from 'unintelligent' process even though the rules are set in place by an intelligence.
High information content depends on what you mean by information. If that has the physics slant, then order can come from natural processes and does often in chemical reactions.
If you want to ascribe some 'meaning' related defintion to 'information' in this context then the problems in RE: (2) rear their none-too-attractive heads again.
RE: (3) as I am sure has been pointed out here as far as IC is concerned they can be shown to be feasible. The information part is then subject to that tiresome discussion.
Any comment on the issues involving primary source would be appreciated.
If 'life' cannot have come about without intelligent intervention then that recurses backward and we find that 'life' can never have got started. NOTE: 'life' is in quotes and used here in a kind of abstract/poetic sense rather than scientific context.
If the prime creator was NOT intelligently designed, then the arguments are falsified, since to have intent to create the prime creator would have had to have a high information content, be IC, etc.