Sure; it’s unreasonable to plead to an explanation which is nonexistent. Translation: You can’t have intelligent design without an intelligent designer.
I completely understand your argument. I just think it sucks.
My counterargument is that the argument for design, as so eloquently explicated by many I.D. proponents, is significantly stronger than your argument that a designing intelligence could not have existed prior to Earth-based life, thus, I side with I.D.
Their reasoning and evidence trumps your reasoning and evidence.
To be blunt, I find your position irrational, and I’ll tell you why.
Your position requires that nature, in itself, be capable of producing advanced intelligence, like human beings, while simultaneously requiring that no such intelligence could have existed prior to that which exists on Earth.
See the problem? If nature is capable of producing advanced intelligence, then that undercuts the premise that no advanced intelligence could have existed prior to that were familiar with on Earth.
Now, your predictable follow-up will be that if nature, in itself, is capable of creating life, then I.D. becomes superfluous. I disagree. If nature is capable of creating intelligence (you say it is), and this intelligence is capable of bioengineering, then we must be open to the possibly that any life we discover anywhere throughout the cosmos is a product of that intelligence, including ourselves. Yet you’re completely hostile to that possibility. How strange.
To develop this idea further, here’s a quick thought experiment:
Let’s say the our own bioengineers create life, and we seed that life on five other planets throughout our solar system. That would mean that of the six planets we know which contain life, five of them would be known to be the result of intelligent design.
Do you see where I’m going with this? All if takes is one sufficiently advanced intelligence, anywhere throughout the cosmos or beyond, to create life and to seed it elsewhere. And, if that created life is designed to develop advanced intelligence, the process will grow, exponentially.
If life forming naturally is a relatively rare event, then this intelligently-designed life will quickly overtake abiogenesis as the most prevalent cause for life throughout the cosmos.
In short: Not even abiogenesis-supporting atheists have a reasonable excuse for dismissing I.D., a priori
, and yet, from my experiences, most of them do.
Of course, these are the same people who often reject the basic laws of logic, and claim to be free thinkers while simultaneously denying free will. I think it’s safe to say that logic isn’t their strong suit.