Speaking for ourselves, this is a summary of a few of our present formalizations of ID arguments, in what we believe to be valid argument forms; thus, if the premises that support the conclusion are more plausible then their denials, then they are sound arguments for intelligent design. That is, if the justification for the premises are more plausible than the alternatives, then conclusion to the argument is more plausible than the alternatives.
Again, even if the arguments can be expressed in valid forms, the premises need to be supported in rigorous detail and that includes the steps of providing justification for the premises. That is, justification of the sort like: 1) probability evidence or 2) plausiblity evidence by way of inference to the best (or more plausible) explanation. Therefore, in order for these arguments to be sound (and not just valid forms of arguments), the truth value of the premises need to be defended and evaluated against various forms of their denials to determine which are more plausible.
Here is what we think are three arguments for an intelligent designers that are stated in valid argument forms. It remains to be shown in the evidence provided by ID advocates on this site and elsewhere whether they can be made sound ones.
1. Inference to the best explanation:
P1. If there is sufficient empirical evidence to show that the universe and biological organisms were designed, then the universe and biological organisms are best explained as designed by some (unspecified) designer.
P2. Based on inference to the best explanation kinds of evidence—not based on a God of the gaps argument—there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the universe and biological organisms are best explained by an agent designer.
Conclusion: The universe and biological organisms are best explained by an agent designer of some kind.
2. Irreducible Complexity:
P1. If there are specified biological systems that cannot be (or are very, very unlikely to be) assembled by natural processes alone, then it follows that complex specified biological systems are irreducibly complex; and thus, by inference to the best explanation, complex biological systems would require an agent designer.
P2. There are biological systems that cannot be (or were very, very unlikely) assembled by natural processes alone, thus they can properly be called irreducibly complex (or very, very likely irreducibly complex) and are thus, candidates or likely candidates to be best explained by an agent’s design.
C. Conclusion: The presence of some irreducibly complex biological systems strongly suggests that a Darwinian evolutionary explanation for them is inadequate—that is, either DE cannot or very, very likely did not assembe the complex biological system by a natural system alone, without any agent of design.
3. The Problem of Complex Information:
P1: If there is sufficient empirical evidence that can be adduced by means of inference to the best explanation that shows that the complex specified information contained (for example) in biological polymers (like DNA, RNA or proteins) were more likely designed then not, then the specified information in those examples are best explained by some (unspecified) intelligent agent.
P2: There is complex specified information contained in the biological polymers examples, that is better explained by some (unspecified) intelligent agent than by natural processes alone.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is an (unspecified) intelligent agent that designed the complex specified information contained in biological polymers.
*********
Links to other formalizations of ID arguments:
- Outlining Intelligent Design’s Positive Argument (Casey Luskin)
- *The Most Overused Objection to Arguments for God (The God of the Gaps Argumentation, Greg Gannsle, The Analytic Christian)