Argument from ignorance: a valid rebuttal to intelligent design arguments ?
Claim: The Argument from ignorance 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.
Reply: Intelligent design wins using eliminative induction based on the fact that its competitors are false. Materialism explains basically nothing consistently in regards to origins but is based on unwarranted consensus and scientific materialism, a philosophical framework, that should never have been applied to historical sciences. Evidence should be permitted to lead wherever it is. Also, eventually, to an intelligent agency as the best explanation of origins.
And intelligent design wins based on abductive reasoning, using inference to the best explanation, relying on positive evidence, on the fact that basically all-natural phenomena demonstrate the imprints and signature of intelligent input and setup. We see an unfolding plan, a universe governed by laws, that follows mathematical principles, finely adjusted on all levels, from the Big Bang, to the earth, to permit life, which is governed by instructional complex information stored in genes and epigenetically, encoding, transmitting and decoding information, used to build, control and maintain molecular machines ( proteins ) that are build based on integrated functional complex parts ( primary to quaternary polypeptide strands and active centers ), which are literally nanorobots with internal communication systems, fully automated manufacturing production lines, transport carriers, turbines, transistors, computers, and factory parks, employed to give rise to a wide range, millions of species, of unimaginably complex multicellular organisms.
Claim: This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.
Reply: Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Atheists repeatedly claim that a solid view or position, in order to be acceptable and valid, must be capable in principle of being empirically verified. The inadequacy of this epistemological approach led to the complete collapse amongst philosophers of science during the second half of the twentieth century, helping to spark a revival of interest in Metaphysics. Today’s Flew’s sort of challenge, which loomed so large in mid-century discussions, is scarcely a blip on the philosophical radar screen. Asking for 100 percent, to truly know what occurred in the past is unrealistic. We believe lots of things with confidence even though we do not have absolute certainty. It is up to logic and the factors of different lines of evidence to determine what causes best to explain our origins. Every worldview, without exception, is a faith-based belief system, consisting of a set of statements the holder adopts as being true. Starting from this view, we can dispense with the foolish notion of "proof," as some are so quick to require. Instead of "proof" in the absolute sense, we proceed with examining the available evidence, which should point with confidence to the worldview that best accounts for that evidence.
Claim: It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false
Reply: Either there is a(are) God(s), conscious intelligent mind(s) at the bottom of all reality, or not. The dichotomy is jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one party or the other, and mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.
Only one worldview can be true. If the various worldviews have mutually exclusive truth claims, only one can be true. A true system of thought must be comprehensive of thought and life. It must possess consistency and coherence in its overall claims. But most importantly, the system must correspond to reality, past, present, and future, natural and supernatural. And all major systems of thought contain key truth claims which are contrary to those of all other systems. A worldview must be consistent and explain the evidence, phenomena, and observations in the natural world adequately.