Apparent Design
1 The appearance of design
The cosmological argument started from a very general fact about the
universe:
that some things exist, that those things are contingent, dependent and
perishable. It was not concerned with the interesting details of
the universe, and the things which constitute it. These are truly
remarkable. Take yourself, for instance. When you
think
about it you have to admit that it is extraordinary that a being as
subtle
and complex in its construction as you should exist. You, among
other
things, give the appearance of having been designed: and apparent
design
definitely suggests the existence of a designer who created you along
with
the rest of the universe for some intelligent purpose.
The various design (or teleological) arguments for the existence of
God are based on this simple idea. (Teleological comes from the
Greek
word telos: goal or end.)
2 Paley's watch
Willian
Paley (1743-1805)
published Natural Theology:
or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity,
Collected from the Appearances of Nature, in 1802.
In it he gave the following argument:
. . . when we come to inspect the
watch, we perceive. . . that its several parts are framed and put
together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to
produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour
of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped
from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other
order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would
have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered
the use that is now served by it. . . . the inference we think is
inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker -- that there
must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an
artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it
actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and
designed its use.
Here is a summary of Paley's argument:
The marks of design are too strong to
be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must
have been a person. That person is GOD.
3 Inference to the best explanation
Often Paley's argument is put forward as though it were an argument
from analogy. However, I would like to cast the design argument
in
a different form. Consider the following arguments:
Lots of things in nature (like human beings, and parts of
human
beings) appear to be designed to fulfill the functions they do fulfill
so well. (e.g. The eye appears to be designed to enable us
to see.) There are two possibilities. Either it is just a
lucky
fluke that there are such things; or else it is the result of
intelligent
design. To say that it is a lucky fluke is no explanation at
all.
It is just the claim that there is no explanation. To attribute
the
appearance of design to a designer is, on the other hand, an
explanation,
and quite a good one at that. In general, one good explanation
for
why things appear a certain way is that they really are that way.
(e.g. A good explanation for why an object appears spherical is
that
it really is spherical.) So one good explanation for why things
in
the world give the appearance of having been designed is that they
really
have been designed. And that in turn entails that there exists a
designer. If there is no other good explanation then this is the
best explanation. Hence the appearance of design gives us a
reason
for believing in the existence of God.
This argument doesn't use analogical reasoning. It uses
inference to the best explanation.
Question: Is the existence of a
designer/creator
the best explanation for the existence of apparent design?
4 Darwin's alternative explanation
Charles
Darwin (1809 -1882)
One reasonable objection to the claim rests on Darwin's theory of
evolution.
Darwin responded to the challenge of explaining apparent design by
giving
an account of how such apparent design could arise through the
operation
of purely natural mechanisms (minute inheritable variations in
offspring,
together with natural selection under pressure for resources). If
that is as good an explanation of apparent design as theism, then the
argument
from apparent design breaks down.
Query: Suppose the theory of evolution does
provide
a good explanation the apparent design in biological organisms.
Is
there not still a problem: why should the basic physical and chemical
structure
of the universe be so hospitable to the formation and development of
self-replicating
organisms?
5 The appearance of fine tuning
This query suggests a revised argument from apparent design.
Suppose
that if some fundamental magnitudes (like the strong and weak nuclear
forces,
or the gravitational force) had been even a tiny bit different from its
actual current value, then the conditions ripe for life would not have
arisen. Some cosmologists think there is actually strong evidence
for this. Change the value of the magnitudes slightly and things
would have gone very differently in the first few seconds after the big
bang, and the various ingredients which make the universe hospitable to
evolution and the formation of self-replicating beings would not have
been
present. Suppose that all the fundamental magnitudes appear
finely
tuned for the development of life (via evolution). That requires
explanation, and there are only two possible explanations: it is
either a fluke, a lucky accident; or it is the result of intelligent
design.
In this case we do not have any other candidate for the best
explanation.
For even if we could show that, given the laws of nature, those
magnitudes
had to have those values, we could ask the same question about those
very
laws. Why are they just like that? Either that fact is just
a lucky fluke or else it is the product of intelligent design.
This brings us to a question which we will take up in some detail
tomorrow:
is there good evidence that any intelligent designer of the universe is
GOOD. To be God a being has to be good. Totally good.
Is the process of evolution one which inspires confidence in the
goodness
of a creator?
