All too common with the debates on intelligent design, evolution, the existence of God, the historicity of the resurrection, string theory, quantum mechanics, and many more, many people object to theories and conclusions because they don’t like the implication. For example, if the resurrection of Jesus is true, there is an immediate implication to the existence of God if it cannot be accounted for by naturalistic means. If intelligent design is true there is an intelligent causation to the order in the universe. There are certainly theistic implications associated with ID. Conversely, there are many problematic implications for certain quantum interpretations. If the level three or four multiverse exist then there are deleterious implications for the existence of mind/body dualism. Objecting to anything based on a rejection of implication is fallacious, it commits the fallacy of an illicit conversion.
Illicit conversion makes an illicit ordering of propositions. For a statement to be true there must be logical sequence of propositions. Statement A-B-C contains the necessary sequence of propositions to have truth value. If the statement is ordered A-C-B there is an illicit conversion in the reasoning. To give this some illustration: there is evidence for a level three multiverse (A), the level three multiverse exists (B), and there are implications that humans do not have minds because the particle interactions that spawn new universes may eliminate immaterialism (C). One cannot object to the logical conclusion of an argument based on implications. That would be illicitly placing the implications logically prior to the conclusion. So the next time anyone says that intelligent design isn’t true because the implications are that there’s a God don’t forget about the illicit conversion. Though the objector may not explicate their objection this way, dig it out from the argument and show the fallacy.