What is the logical fallacy ';argument from incredulity'; and how does it apply to Intelligent Design?

It means ';I can't believe this is possibly true, so it can't be true'; It's an emotional, rather than logical way of dismissing evidence.





Intelligent Design is riddled with it, not just in the basic premise that anything complicated must have a designer, but in many of the specific arguments they use.





For example on an ID website I saw the other day it was talking about how ';evolutionists'; say lungfish evolved due to lakes drying out (which of course was quote-mining to set up a straw man argument but anyway) and then it said something like ';what, all the lakes and rivers in the world dried out, what about the Amazon, the etc etc, they all dried out? Can you imagine that. No.'; Which of course is a fallacious argument to make in so many ways, but bound together with argument from incredulity.





I guess the argument works well because they are appealing to people who, from a very emotional point of view, don't want to believe in evolution, and who are largely ignorant of the related science which would make things seem less incredible.What is the logical fallacy ';argument from incredulity'; and how does it apply to Intelligent Design?
';Argument From Incredulity';... is a sub-category of the ';Argumentum ad Ignorantiam'; (Argument From Ignorance). It goes something like this: ';I can't conceive of how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it.'; That describes 'Intelligent Design', in a nutshell.





That does not point to a limitation of nature... rather, it exemplifies a limitation of knowledge and/or intellect. Also, it is intellectually dishonest, since it does not (as scientists do) ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge and/or intellect... it merely invokes the fanciful idea of a supernatural creator-entity to manifest the ILLUSION that your ideations map to reality.





'Faith' (wishful, magical thinking) is a substitute for evidence.





'Belief' (the internalized 'certainty' that you are privy to the 'truth' pertaining to some fundamental aspect of existence and/or reality) is a substitute for knowledge.





faith + belief = self-delusion and willful ignorance





****************


';The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge.'; ~ Daniel Boorstin


****************


';When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.'; ~ Robert M. PirsigWhat is the logical fallacy ';argument from incredulity'; and how does it apply to Intelligent Design?
don't know
An argument from incredulity takes the fact that one has trouble believing or imagining that something is true (or false) to be a good reason for thinking it isn't true (or false). Such as, ';I can't believe that he could have committed murder'; is a bad reason to conclude that he did not commit murder.





The argument from incredulity logical fallacy with regard to intelligent design proceeds thusly: ';I can't believe that all of this complex design had no complex designer, therefore there must be one.';





One's incredulity in the face of complex design--and one's positing, then, that there must be a complex designer, by default--is a jumping-off place. If one just sort of sits there and does nothing--that is, does not seek the designer--then one will remain with a wishy-washy sort of faith. On the other hand, if one sees complex design and seeks to find a complex designer, one has opened a door, and then one will--if he or she proceeds to seek in humility and earnestness--find more evidence that there is, indeed, a God.





But as far as just arguing back and forth about how design must have a designer, it's an empty set unless one takes another step. That is, on its own, the argument is fallacious.





I hope I'm making sense here.
A person who uses that argument is demonstrating he is not only ignorant, he is a moron.








It's okay to be ignorant and know you are ignorant, but quite another to be ignorant and claim ignorance is the basis for your opinions.
The ';argument from incredulity'; is simply an argument that could be summed up as: ';I don't know how this happens, so God must have done it.';


The classic God-of-the-gaps argument, as it's also called.





It applies to Intelligent Design in that the only purpose of the I.D. movement is to try to disprove evolution, then say ';Well, if it wasn't evolution, the only other possible explanation was God! Hallelujah!';





It's illogical because it doesn't provide any evidence *for* an Intelligent Designer, it only tries to argue that other ideas are wrong, so that it can create ignorance on which to base it's argument.
It basically means, ';I don't believe it; therefor it must not be true.';





But as I've said, saying something don't make it so (or not so)...