25 Marker Plan

Are Design arguments for the existence of God convincing?  

Statement of Intent: appearance of design which DA rely on can be explained by evolution, even if we want to still claim there is a designer there is no reason the designer would align with our concept of God. Temporal design arguments avoid these objections but fail to defend their introduction of God as an explanation and cannot show that the explanation is God more than any other explanation.  

AO1:  

R – traditional design arguments (such as Hume’s, outlined above) fail because they rest on a false analogy. As Hume highlighted in the design argument which he created, design arguments rest on the claim that the natural world is like a mechanical artefact, when it is more organic than mechanic.  

I – Paley formulates a design argument which does not rely on an analogy:  

If we found a watch in the heath, we would infer it had been designed as it has an organisation of parts for a purpose. Natural things display this same property (Paley identifies shared properties rather than drawing an analogy). If the inference of a designer is correct for the watch, then it should also be correct for natural things, and the universe as a whole. Therefore, the universe was designed by a mind distinct from what is designed, and this mind is God. 

C – Paley’s argument rests on the claim that the explanation for the appearance of design in the universe must be God. However, evolution and the process of natural selection offer a better explanation for the appearance of design without an intentional designer. Natural selection is the process by which genes tend toward what makes them reproductively successful. As a result, natural things appear ‘designed’ (well-suited to their habitats, adapted to hunt etc) when these are actually traits which have evolved without intention just because they are reproductively successful genetics. Therefore, there is now a more scientifically coherent explanation for the appearance of design, rather than God (the conclusion drawn by design arguments)  

E – this is important because it demonstrates that God is not the only explanation (or even the likely explanation) for the appearance of design in the universe. However, it is not a very crucial argument because it does not rule out God as part of the design of the universe – perhaps God created natural selection, for example  

R – as well as there being a better explanation for the appearance of design in the universe than God, design arguments can also be crucially undermined as the conclusion that if there is a designer it would be God is a weak one.  

For example, design arguments infer the existence of God as a designer from comparisons with human design. However, they ignore features of human design that would change the conclusion pf who designed a universe. Human designers, for example, tend to work in groups, so why is the inference drawn by design arguments that of a single designer. Furthermore, designers are often separate from creators, so why are we assuming God is both the designer and the creator. Designs also often go through multiple trial stages, so could this universe be a draft?  

I – design arguments could respond by arguing that these features of God are assumed for other reasons (how could God create the universe and everything within it if he wasn’t omnipotent). Furthermore, design arguments can identify how well suited the universe is to human life that it must have been intentionally designed. The way the Earth is, the distance from the Sun, the exact angle the Big Bang happened at all had to occur exactly as they did in order for human life to appear  

C – However, we can challenge this principle entirely because it assumes the universe was built around us, rather than the other way round. This anthropic principle faces several issues: firstly, it assumes the laws of nature are the way they are because of us, rather than us being the way we are because of the laws of nature. Secondly, we shouldn’t be surprised that the universe is finetuned for us because if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be around to find out. The use of the anthropic principle, and the anthropocentrism that design arguments tend to rely on, are hugely unconvincing.  

E – this is a slightly more crucial argument as it highlights that design arguments (based on spatial order) are unconvincing not only because evolution can explain the appearance of design, but also because God as a conclusion is a weak conclusion anyway. This is more crucial because, even if there was a designer, it is unlikely to be God and the claim of design within the universe is not a hugely strong claim anyway.  

R – design arguments for the existence of God based on spatial order are largely unconvincing.  

I – However, we can also argue for the existence of God based on temporal order within the universe. Swinburne argues that science cannot explain temporal order and scientific laws, because science presupposed these laws. Furthermore, there are temporal regularities that are related to human action which are explained in terms of persons, similar to the temporal regularities seen in nature which should therefore be explained in terms of persons. Swinburne claims that the best explanation is therefore God.  

C – but this explanation introduces an entirely new entity, which appears to require an explanation itself.  

I – Swinburne claims this new entity is introduced out of necessity, and it is okay for it to go unexplained because unexplained things happen all the time  

C – But, if we are okay with unexplained things happening all the time, shouldn’t we just be okay with temporal regularities going unexplained. If Swinburne’s explanation relies on this claim, then it is simpler to say that temporal order can be unexplained rather than introduce an entirely new entity. Furthermore, there are other explanations we could offer e.g. the multiverse 

E – neither temporal nor spatial design arguments satisfactorily draw the conclusion that the designer must be God. The appearance of spatial design can be explained by evolution, and even if we still want to claim there is a designer there appears to be little reason to assume this designer is like our concept of God. Furthermore, arguments for temporal order rely on introducing more unexplained entities, undermining their claim that temporal regularities require an explanation. As a result, design arguments fail to successfully demonstrate, or even suggest, the existence of God.