This was popularly presented by William paley the watch maker analogy is used to describe the intelligent designer. The watch maker asserts that anything complex will require a designer. The way paley put it was that if you walked down a road and you find a wristwatch, if you look at it you would know it’s too complex and orderly to come by a random process, that it requires a designer. Just like how the universe and life is, it also requires a designer. This is the most common excuse given by theist and deist and these are some of the flaws they commit:
1. First and foremost, this is a false analogy fallacy
False analogy fallacy means that because two things have the same property in one aspect, they have the same property in all other aspect. So paley’s logic go thus;
the watch is complex = it requires a designer
life is complex = life also requires a designer

using this faulty logic to reason I can as well say

the watch is complex = it was created in 2006
life is complex = it was created in 2006
so this means that because 2 objects share the same property in one does not mean they share other properties.

2. Secondly both theist and deist love to commits a false cause fallacy
False cause fallacy means attributing a cause and effect to something even though it has not been proven. They say “complexity and order can only be caused by a creator”. This statement has been proven to be completely incorrect. This analogy mistakes correlation with causation. Let me give you a good example, because there is an increase in rain and also an increase in rape cases then you conclude that there might be a relation between rain and rapist, just like complexity and designer, this just not mean one requires the other. Theist and deist now completely ignore evolution by natural selection. Well I am not here to explain evolution by natural selection. We (scientific community) know that evolution is a fact just like the heat from the sun (Richard Dawkins). The reason we accept the fact that the wrist watch was designed was because we know the watch was designed.

3. Thirdly, they commit an appeal to nature fallacy.
Appeal to nature fallacy asserts that something is good or immoral because it occurs naturally or it is bad because it is unnatural. You would be intellectually myopic to think that penicillin is bad because it is unnatural. You hear most Christians and Muslims say “Homosexuality is unnatural”. They say homosexuality is an abominable sin unto their god according to jesusjnr. Even if it is, it does not make it immoral. The fact is Homosexuality is natural. While homosexuals can’t procreate themselves, they facilitate and provide for heterosexuals that can procreate. According to one of Richard Dawkins book the selfish gene, he explained evolution in a gene centered sense. That is organism care about each other as far as their gene is passed on to the next generation. There is enough evidence whether you like it or not that the group of these archaic homo sapiens had a higher population of homosexuals which helped the heterosexual to procreate better. This is the reason why some percentage of animals have Homosexuals amongst them e.g sheep, bat, dogs etc. This is because it is integral to their survival. To think homosexuality is unnatural means you fail to understand our evolution.

4. Fourthly, they commit an equivocation fallacy
This is a type of fallacy in which the user is alternating between the different meanings a single word can have in different contexts. This is one of the most common fallacy committed by creationist. For example, “You have faith in science, and I have faith in god."
This exploits the fact that “faith” is often used to mean "confidence," that is having a solid reason to be confident of something due to its past performance—this argument is an effort to equate science with, religion when in reality science does not require faith. According to theist faith is just believing without evidence.

5. They commit a non sequitur fallacy.
This is means when the conclusion of an argument does not logically follow its premise. For example, many theist and deist would say “the universe is too complex, so there is a god” The proof of an assertion must be a logical step in reasoning with a logical relationship. That the world has beautiful and complex things for us to see is not necessarily related to the existence of a god and is therefore a pointless proof. Likewise, that Muslim extremists carry out acts of terror is not logically connected to whether or not the religion of Islam is a viable religious institution and is an irrelevant proof.

6. They commit Black or white fallacy
This type of fallacy occurs in arguments that have a certain premise: i.e. one that gives just two alternatives when there can be more alternatives. For example, most religious people say it is either complex life was created by god or it came by a random chance. Now the religious ones forget that these are not the only two options that can create complex life. Natural selection explains how complex life came. This leads to the next logical fallacy.

7. They commit the strawman fallacy.
The Strawman fallacy someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. For example, “if human evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys?” this is just a sign that many creationists do not understand evolution. And think the best answer to them is to ask “if god created man from dust, how come there are still dust?”.

8. They commit the Burden of proof fallacy
Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side. If I propose that the particle x exist, then the burden of proof rest on me to give evidence. But religious people ask atheist to give evidence of god’s non-existence. Common if I claimed I am using a stone to surf the internet, won’t you ask me to provide you with evidence rather than me telling you to give me evidence that I am not using stone to browse the internet. As Carl Sagan said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

9. Argument from ignorance
It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. For example "I don't see how evolution could increase the complexity of an organism," so it is not true. Using this same logic i can say " since you did not see the world war 1 and 2" then they never happened.

10. Personal incredulity fallacy
This is the most common fallacy committed by most religious people to defend their god and the Personal incredulity fallacy is Attacking a proposition based on lack of definite evidence; accusing a theory of being irrational without presenting actual evidence. In summary when you do not understand something and you say it cannot happen because you do not understand. I’ve noticed babyapple commit this type of fallacy, just because you do not understand the big bang theory of evolution does not make it false.

Bookmarked for reference.

Not all supporters of the intelligent designer theory are are mainstream religious theists or deists.
I have a question for you tho...Why do you feel the evolution theory is a valid one? I'd like to learn one or two things.
"Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver,and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. This view subsequently fluctuated,and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on certain religious matters.

Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church, but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

EmperorHarry:
Not all supporters of the intelligent designer theory are are mainstream religious theists or deists.
I have a question for you tho...Why do you feel the evolution theory is a valid one? I'd like to learn one or two things.
"Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver,and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. This view subsequently fluctuated,and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on certain religious matters.

Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church, but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

May be this can illustrate the fact that evolution is not an attempt to disprove the god because the religious bring it up as though it was meant to do that.

LordReed:


May be this can illustrate the fact that evolution is not an attempt to disprove the god because the religious bring it up as though it was meant to do that.

Reconciliation of God and evolution theories is preposterous for a strong believer in a supreme being that is concerned with the affairs of men and can have relationships with them I.e. a Christian,Islamic and mainstream religious God but they both lack enough rational evidence to explain the big question...What started it and why? The uncreated creator title is equal to the big bang as far as I'm concerned.

There was a time I declared myself an atheist but evolution was never a theory I found credible. So I'm pretty much dabbling in beliefs within the neutral zones... Agnosticism, pantheism etc.

EmperorHarry:

Reconciliation of God and evolution theories is preposterous for a strong believer in a supreme being that is concerned with the affairs of men and can have relationships with them I.e. a Christian,Islamic and mainstream religious God but they both lack enough rational evidence to explain the big question...What started it and why? The uncreated creator title is equal to the big bang as far as I'm concerned.

There was a time I declared myself an atheist but evolution was never a theory I found credible. So I'm pretty much dabbling in beliefs within the neutral zones... Agnosticism, pantheism etc.

I am not really concerned with whether it is compatible, that is a problem for them to solve. What I am concerned with is the facts as we find them, evolution is fact.

LordReed:


I am not really concerned with whether it is compatible, that is a problem for them to solve. What I am concerned with is the facts as we find them, evolution is fact.

So would you say that the big bang is also a fact? Cos that's the original position as a first cause by evolutionists.

Emperorharry Yes, not all theist or deist are creationists. I said these are most of the fallacies used by them to defend the existence of any god.

To answer your question why I feel evolution is valid theory ?

Let me give you some evidence of evolution by natural selection
1) DNA’s
2) transitional fossils
Etc.
IF you check out most scientific peer reviewed paper. You don’t see anything about the intelligent design.

Now intelligent designer is just another name for god in which evolution by natural selection has refuted.


As an atheist, I do not need any authority to tell me what to do. If Richard Dawkins , Sam Harris, Seun, capslocked and many other Nairaland atheist decide to become deist or pantheist. This doesn’t invalidate my “lack of belief”

If you noticed I mainly used Big Bang and evolution because these are one of the scientific theories that tells us that we do not need any form of intelligent designer ( god ) for the creation of life and the universe.

EmperorHarry:

So would you say that the big bang is also a fact? Cos that's the original position as a first cause by evolutionists.

It is not the original position as a first cause by evolutionists. Darwin was no longer alive when the BBT was 1st proposed.

The BBT is the best explanation that fits the facts as we know them now. It is possible in the future that it will be revised as we gain more knowledge of our universe or it is completely overturned by a better model/theory.

hakeem4:
Emperorharry Yes, not all theist or deist are creationists. I said these are most of the fallacies used by them to defend the existence of any god.

To answer your question why I feel evolution is valid theory ?

Let me give you some evidence of evolution by natural selection
1) DNA’s
2) transitional fossils
Etc.
IF you check out most scientific peer reviewed paper. You don’t see anything about the intelligent design.
Now intelligent designer is just another name for god in which evolution by natural selection has refuted

Natural selection is a possibility among many other probabilites we are faced with but natural selection can occur regardless of your opinion of the intelligent designer theory.

As an atheist, I do not need any authority to tell me what to do.

Its pretty obvious you have issues with the mainstream version of God and is therefore bias in your analysis of the evolution theory.

If Richard Dawkins , Sam Harris, Seun, capslock and many other Nairaland atheist decide to become deist or pantheist. This doesn’t invalidate my “lack of belief”

This only proves the point I made earlier

If you noticed I mainly used Big Bang and evolution because these are one of the scientific theories that tells us that we do not need any form of intelligent designer ( god ) for the creation of life and the universe.

I don't think there is any reason to talk any further. It's obvious you're really not concerned about evolution.You're just looking for ways to refute God so I don't think you're a solid evolution or a ride or die evolutionist.

EmperorHarry:
Natural selection is a possibility among many other probabilites we are faced with but natural selection can occur regardless of your opinion of the intelligent designer theory

. Well whether you like it or not evolution by natural selection is as real as the heat from the sun. Secondly no evidence for the intelligent designer. I have told you to show me any peer reviewed scientific journal that supports intelligent designer.

Its pretty obvious you have issues with the mainstream version of God and is therefore bias in your analysis of the evolution theory.

This only proves the point I made earlier


I don't think there is any reason to talk any further. It's obvious you're really not concerned about evolution.You're just looking for ways to refute God so I don't think you're a solid evolution or a ride or die evolutionist.

well I do not have any issue with any god. The truth is that the universe is fine the way it is and I would not even want to live in any universe created by god

LordReed:


It is not the original position as a first cause by evolutionists. Darwin was no longer alive when the BBT was 1st proposed.

I wasn't insinuating that it was included in Darwin's original theory. Don't misinterpret it.

The BBT is the best explanation that fits the facts as we know them now. It is possible in the future that it will be revised as we gain more knowledge of our universe or it is completely overturned by a better model/theory.

So the big bang theory is only a theory? And not facts and as such the first cause position is still up for grabs and any opinion is still a possible outcome even the theistic God.

EmperorHarry:
I wasn't insinuating that it was included in Darwin's original theory. Don't misinterpret it.


So the big bang theory is only a theory? And not facts and as such the first cause position is still up for grabs and any opinion is still a possible outcome even the theistic God.

do you even understand what a scientific theory really means ??

hakeem4:
. Well whether you like it or not evolution by natural selection is as real as the heat from the sun.Secondly no evidence for the intelligent designer. I have told you to show me any peer reviewed scientific journal that supports intelligent designer.

Well I'm not for or against the intelligent designer theory just yet..I'm collecting and comparing the data provided by both sides.

well I do not have any issue with any god. The truth is that the universe is fine the way it is and I would not even want to live in any universe created by god

I doubt that and I have my reasons too.

hakeem4:
do you even understand what a scientific theory really means ??

I dunno..do you?

I have been on this discourse with two religious giants of the Catholic faith, @ubenedictus and the other that god's by the name @9inches and we still have not been able to resolve the issues at hand.

I therefore employ other Christians and religious giants to join this conversation and help us all resolve the issues involved.
I joined the thread from the page 4.

Thank you
C.A

Here is the link to thread: https://www.nairaland.com/5128731/oblate-eusebius-oguizu-dead-founder/3

hakeem4:
This was popularly presented by William paley the watch maker analogy is used to describe the intelligent designer. The watch maker asserts that anything complex will require a designer. The way paley put it was that if you walked down a road and you find a wristwatch, if you look at it you would know it’s too complex and orderly to come by a random process, that it requires a designer. Just like how the universe and life is, it also requires a designer. This is the most common excuse given by theist and deist and these are some of the flaws they commit:
1. First and foremost, this is a false analogy fallacy
False analogy fallacy means that because two things have the same property in one aspect, they have the same property in all other aspect. So paley’s logic go thus;
the watch is complex = it requires a designer
life is complex = life also requires a designer

using this faulty logic to reason I can as well say

the watch is complex = it was created in 2006
life is complex = it was created in 2006
so this means that because 2 objects share the same property in one does not mean they share other properties.

EmperorHarry:
I wasn't insinuating that it was included in Darwin's original theory. Don't misinterpret it.

What then did you mean?

So the big bang theory is only a theory? And not facts and as such the first cause position is still up for grabs and any opinion is still a possible outcome even the theistic God.

First off, the word theory in scientific terms is different from its more common colloquial use. A theory means it is pretty much established fact based on the available data. Does theory mean it is immutable? No, it means there is more support from the available data for it than there isn't. The general theory of relativity superseded Newtonian gravitational theories and itself was superseded by special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Science is ready to modify its positions based on fact not on baseless assumptions.

BBT is what the facts indicate as far as we know. The expansion event we call the big bang may not have happened but that will mean the facts point to a different conclusion. If that conclusion is a god then it needs to be demonstrated.

LordReed:


What then did you mean?

Original position as a first cause by "Modern" evolutionists...

First off, the word theory in scientific terms is different from its more common colloquial use. A theory means it is pretty much established fact based on the available data. Does theory mean it is immutable? No, it means there is more support from the available data for it than there isn't. The general theory of relativity superseded Newtonian gravitational theories and itself was superseded by special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Science is ready to modify its positions based on fact not on baseless assumptions.

A scientific theory is a regular theory cos it's not yet a fact but based on other related facts.It can be rejected or modified which means it's technically assumptions based on said related facts.

BBT is what the facts indicate as far as we know. The expansion event we call the big bang may not have happened but that will mean the facts point to a different conclusion. If that conclusion is a god then it needs to be demonstrated.

BBT is still just a regular theory which makes it a possibility just like every other scientific and nonscientific theory.

EmperorHarry:
Original position as a first cause by "Modern" evolutionists...

How can it be a first cause when itself was caused by something else?

A scientific theory is a regular theory cos it's not yet a fact but based on other related facts.It can be rejected or modified which means it's technically assumptions based on said related facts.

BBT is still just a regular theory which makes it a possibility just like every other scientific and nonscientific theory.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Buddy, a scientific theory is not like every other nonscientific theory.

LordReed:


How can it be a first cause when itself was caused by something else?

Oh really? Interesting.. What preceded the big bang?

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Buddy, a scientific theory is not like every other nonscientific theory.

Dude trust me I totally get the scientific theory thing but I'm pretty sure it is still just a theory which has the potential of becoming a fact. Theory of relativity has not been disproven but is still a theory cos science doesn't want to make errors where assumptions are facts which is then disproven over time.

EmperorHarry:
Oh really? Interesting.. What preceded the big bang?

We don't know because it is beyond our current powers to investigate.

Dude trust me I totally get the scientific theory thing but I'm pretty sure it is still just a theory which has the potential of becoming a fact. Theory of relativity has not been disproven but is still a theory cos science doesn't want to make errors where assumptions are facts which is then disproven over time.

When I see someone say "its just a theory" it sounds to me like they do not understand the rigor that is undergone to establish them as theories. The colloquial use of theory has turned every Tom and Harry's fevered dream into the equal of scientific theory which cannot be further from the truth.

LordReed:


We don't know because it is beyond our current powers to investigate.

Wow...So the the big bang is the original position as the first cause to modern evolutionists.

When I see someone say "its just a theory" it sounds to me like they do not understand the rigor that is undergone to establish them as theories. The colloquial use of theory has turned every Tom aand Harry's fevered dream into the equal of scientific theory which cannot be further from the truth.

Now that's what really differentiates a scientific theory from a nonscientific theory..So comparing both scientific and nonscientific theories that try to explain or explain a phenomenon/subject is a valid comparison but scientific theories have verifiable facts as a foundation for an assumption(said theory) while nonscientific theories tend to be assumed based on intuition or just hunch. They can both be valid and invalid,now that is the point I'm trying to make.I'm not discrediting the efforts made in establishing scientific theories.
@bolded2 What happened to Dick?

EmperorHarry:
Wow...So the the big bang is the original position as the first cause to modern evolutionists.

Are you trying to be funny cos it's not working. How does we don't know how it started translate to it doesn't have a cause?

Now that's what really differentiates a scientific theory from a nonscientific theory..So comparing both scientific and nonscientific theories that try to explain or explain a phenomenon/subject is a valid comparison but scientific theories have verifiable facts as a foundation for an assumption(said theory) while nonscientific theories tend to be assumed based on intuition or just hunch. They can both be valid and invalid,now that is the point I'm trying to make.I'm not discrediting the efforts made in establishing scientific theories.
@bolded2 What happened to Dick?

So now you are equating scientific theories that are rigorously figured out with intuition?

Dick stopped having fevered dreams.