One of the common claims made by atheists against intelligent design is that it is an argument from incongruity. While sometimes, people do use this type of argument when arguing for intelligent design, the idea is actually based on we observe not personal belief or understanding. It is the arguments against intelligent design that are mainly arguments from incongruity.
An argument from incongruity is an informal logical fallacy where a person argues that something must be true or false based on their understanding or belief about it. An argument from incongruity has two main forms.
I cannot see how B can be true; therefore, B is false.
I cannot see how B can be false; therefore, B is true.
The reason that this is a logical fallacy is because it is based on personal opinion rather than empirical facts.
While some people talking about intelligent design, may indeed use this logical fallacy solely because of their personal inability to believe either abiogenesis or universal common descent it is not part of the actual argument. The actual argument for intelligent design, is that based on what we actually know and can actually observe, that complex organized structures and complex specific information like what is found within living cells could only originates from an intelligent mind. This is not an argument from incongruity because it is not based on not being personally unable to believe that abiogenesis and universal common descent are possible but rather the empirical evidence that the structures and information found in a living cell had to originate from an intelligent mind.
Meanwhile, the main argument against intelligent design is the priori rejection of a designer and insisting that it had to be a result of natural processes despite evidence to the contrary. This makes the main argument against intelligent design an argument from incongruity because it is based on the person’s making the argument refusal to accept God as a possible answer. The argument is in its essence, “I do not believe God exists therefore intelligent design must be wrong.”
They will often go on to claim that even if they do not have the answers now, that a naturalistic explanation may yet be found. While theoretically that is true, it is not based on empirical evidence but based on an act of faith. Furthermore, such a claim can always be made regardless of the evidence.
In conclusion, intelligent design is not based on an Argument from Incongruity but rather it is based on the actual empirical evidence that we have. This evidence not only includes the fact that only an intelligent mind has ever been observed to build organized complex structures and complex specific information, but they are literally empirical issues with every step of the process.
