Notes: Logic, Evolution, Intelligent Design

In taking a stand on the merits of the Theory of Evolution, one's options are not limited to either Evolution or Intelligent Design. Rather, the fundamental option is Evolution or non-Evolution. The latter is the negation of the former, and, as such, lacks determinate content; we only know what it's not. (Note, e.g., that the opposite of "happy" is not "sad," but, rather, "non-happy" - which subsumes, but is wider than, "sad").

Evolution of/within determinate species - "intra-specific" evolution - seems to me beyond dispute (note Darwin's copious examples taken from animal husbandry). However I happen to be skeptical about Evolution-with-a-capital-E or "inter-specific" evolution, viz., the alleged coming-to-be of prosaic, specific-determinate kinds from past entities from which they differed specifically (viz., in species). My doubts - which, a fortiori, extend to the naturalistic origin of life -  are not informed by any religious or theistic convictions, as I have none. And the latter entails, of course, that I am skeptical about "Design." What's left, then?

It's crucial to distinguish between the possibilities which, as function of time and place, we can plausibly imagine and posit, versus possibilities which are exhausted, logically. Draw up a simple Venn diagram and note the indeterminacy of the extensions of the categories of both "Non-designed" and "Not according to Inter-specific evolution." The former contains/subsumes the opposite of the latter as much as the latter contains/subsumes the opposite of the former. But logically there's no warrant to claim that either "the intelligently designed" is coterminous with "not according to inter-specific evolution"; nor that "according to inter-specific evolution" is logically identical to "not intelligently designed."

In the absence of a compelling new theory, one might focus on the respective merits of the two current contenders. But since they aren't true opposites, to discount one can at best only increase the probabilities of the other. To suppose otherwise would entail some variant on the ad ignorantiam fallacy.

If there are logical difficulties with both, the etiology of complex organic forms, not to mention life itself, might yet be a mystery, requiring further "skepticism" in the original sense, viz., inquiry  - for, coherence is a "pre-scientific" requirement of any putative theory, scientific or otherwise.