What If: careful with your choice of words, intelligent design IS NOT a demonstrated fact.
It's not a demonstrated fact that the carburetor in your car is not located inside the headlight, like your eyeball is not located inside your intestine. (specified complexity)? It's not a demonstrated fact that your car tyres are not made of iron, and my teeth aren't made from candy floss? (correct materials). It's not a demonstrated fact that car tyres are created in congruence with road tarmac? It's not a fact that lungs are made in congruence with air? (interactive viability). It's not a fact that when you use your ferrari's code-switch "on" for the lights that the engine doesn't fire? It's not a fact that when DNA codes for a synthase you don't get a two stroke engine? (information code; with code, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics all correctly in place). It's not a fact that if you cut your finger you won't bleed to death? It's not a fact that if it rains you will crash your car because it doesn't have windshield wipers? (contingency planning).
Why do I highlight a lifeform with an example of technology? To show that the same factual features of design in a car, are in life.
So then to avoid the special pleading fallacy, in regards to intelligent design, if you say something about the car, you must also say it about life.
Understanding the special pleading fallacy will instruct you WHY. If you don't get it, here is an example;
Bob has a car, with the keys and the registration.
Ken has a car, with the keys and the registration.
Their car, keys and registration are identical, that is all the information you have been given and all the data you have.
Logically, can you make the following statement?
"Bob is the owner of that car but Ken isn't."
A man shoots someone because he doesn't like them. The queen of England shoots someone because she doesn't like them.
Can we arrest and imprison the man but let the queen go, "because she is the queen"?
If your answers are, "no", then you begin to understand what I mean by "special pleading". For if you have the same facts for each, but treat one differently, then it is a double standard fallacy.
I don't talk about these fallacies because I have invented them. We are now dealing in deductive proof.
Logic isn't about OPINION. It's about proof. You have deductive proof as long as the premises are certainly true and the conclusion follows.
EXAMPLE; three men in a house. We know one is murdered. We know nobody entered the house. We know therefore that either Bob or Ken murdered Popeye. Popeye we KNOW he was murdered in the bathroom, and Bob was recorded on CCTV washing dishes in the kitchen the whole night from an all night super steak out, eat as many as you can. Therefore Ken murdered Joe.
As long as the premises are 100% true, it is 100% proven that he is the murderer.
CONCLUSION: We know that the features of design in an eyeball are identical in their design, to that of a ferrari. Not identical in what they are, but identical in the features of design they share. For example every part of the car is arranged in a way to fit with other parts and function in congruence with them. It is the same with the eye, the location of the eyes, how it functions as a unit with the brain and ears, for balance, etc..we know the foot is not located on the elbow but in congruence with all the other parts of the body.
If you are going to state it is a fact that a car is designed, you must also state it is a fact that life is designed, for we have the same facts. The only difference is one vacuous difference, which is inconsequential - we know the designer of the car, we can locate them or could locate them in the past, and confirm they designed it.
This is a moot point of difference for reasons I won't go into here.
It's not a matter of science. The science part is just the available facts of anatomy.
Until you start to value logic for it's importance in figuring out all of these things, you will have a vital piece of the formula missing, IMHO.
It is a fact life is designed, the only difference is that it is a much superior level of design as proven by the existence of biomimetics, which is a field of study which plagiarises the designs in nature because men can't match those designs. "if you can't beat them, join them."
That is to say - they cannot match God's designs so they have to borrow them instead.
ERGO, if the designs in nature are NOT cleverer than man's designs, then it would not follow than man would steal them.
(That's an example of Reductio Ad Absurdum, where the modus tollens gives you 100% proof that the design in nature is cleverer than mans, for, "if it was not, man would not borrow from nature."
"man does borrow from nature, therefore it is cleverer". (modus tollens rule obeyed)
ERGO, it is factual that life is both designed, and more cleverly designed than man's artificial technology.
Do not misunderstand - I am not giving ANY opinions here, nor are any opinions of any worth, intellectually. I am simply expounding logical proof. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, life is designed, and it doesn't matter if every opinion on the planet disagrees with me, for that does not change something which is deductively provable by the formally sound rules of a syllogistic argument.
So this is not something to do with "mike the wiz". No, mike the wiz is merely stating things that are 100% provable.