Philosophy 101

What are Philos main objections to the argument from design ?

The argument from design is an inductive inference which works in the following manner- We observe a certain situation ( A ) numerous times, and every time we observe (A) , we also observe a related (B) , such that we infer there is a connection between (A) and (B) for example every time we see a fire, we see something burning. So for every (C) analogous to (A) there must be a (D) analogous to ( B ). The basic premise of the argument from design is this All machines are a product of design by intelligence. The universe resembles a machine therefore by induction; it must be designed by an intelligent being. This however, is a posteriori proof.

Philos main objections to the argument from design are the following Firstly, inductive inference depends upon numerous occurrings of A and B together, but the relationship between the existence of the universe and its creation by an all-powerful being is a unique- one time only occurrence, therefore it is hard to apply inductive inference to this sort of a relationship. Secondly, the analogy between a universe and a machine is incorrect because he believes that the universe is not necessarily similar to a machine, rendering the basic inductive analogy useless. He states that the comparison between the universe and a machine is flawed because humans have no complete knowledge of the infinite that is the universe, to him drawing comparisons between the whole universe and anything we know is cavalier and arrogant due to our hugely limited knowledge and can be likened to an illiterate peasant evaluating the works of Newton.

Also Philo dislikes comparing the universe to a machine to begin with because it is not a comparison between two distinct entities. All known machines are found in the known universe, so the comparison is between the whole and the part of a whole. He dislikes this comparison because it would be like trying to understand the growth of a human body by studying the growth of a single strand of hair.

The argument from design also relies on the fact that all complex order is a result of intelligent design, however living in a post Darwinian world, we know that organisms develop complex designs through constant adaptation and reproduction over long periods of time and not as a result of any intelligent body acting upon them. Thus Philo concludes that the argument from design is less of an inference and more of a conjecture.

The reason Philo dislikes the comparison between the universe and a machine is because as the earth was the only part of the universe that was observable in Humes time, there was no way of knowing whether the laws of nature that applied on earth would apply everywhere in the universe. Hence it was not a great idea to compare the whole universe to something that could be found on earth and was bound by the earthly laws. Therefore in his time, Philos objection was a very valid one, however 20th century science has showed us that the laws of nature are universal and therefore the laws that bind the earth apply to the whole of the universe, validating the analogy between a machine and the universe to some extent if not completely.

In my opinion, the strongest objection to the argument from design is the final one, that all complex order is not necessarily a product of intelligent design, but is also possible through natural adaptation

over time. Living organisms have existed for a very brief time in comparison to the existence of the universe, and in that relatively short period of time we have evolved from basic single celled organisms to complex and highly ordered beings whos inner workings are still barely fathomable. Therefore if we were to accept that the universe is similar to an evolving organism, given the enormous amount of time since its conception, its current state of order, despite its size would be understandable through self adaptation. Although the laws of physics state that the entropy of the universe is increasing, therefore there should be more chaos than order, given the benefit of modern cosmological findings, we can justify the state of order through the expanding universe theory with the chaos concentrated at the fringes and the order at the center, where we find ourselves. Thus, even if we are to believe in the order of the universe, we can attribute it to the passage of time and not the work of some intelligent being.

Some who believe in the argument from design state that the perfect conditions required for the existence of life could not have been met unless there was some intelligent creator who set the universe in such a perfect state to bear life because mathematically speaking, the odds of such perfect conditions being met all in one place are extremely low. However a simple counter to this argument would be that it is life that is adapting to suit nature and not nature that has adapted itself to suit life.