This may well be the oldest and most appealing argument for the existence of God. It is probably the primary intellectual reason why people have believed in God since always. Few arrive at a religious conviction by way of philosophical reasoning such as the Prime Mover and the Ontological Arguments. Men look at the heavens, an earth full of living creatures and human beings and they are moved to think that these wonders are the works of God. I will spend considerable time on this argument because I think it is the most influential among ordinairy people.
Simply, the Design Argument asserts that an examination of the natural world will show clear signs that it has been designed and hence created.(This argument should really be labled the Artifact Argument since it asserts that we are looking not only at a design but its execution, an artifact.) The core assumption is that our knowledge of human artifacts can be used to recognize the work of a cosmic designer. Although this line of reasoning might be very appealing at first blush, closer examination shows a number of serious weaknesses that are shared by all its varieties. All the species of the design arguments have a common set of, core of ideas and I will first discuss these in a general way dealing with the specific arguments later.
Firstly, like the Prime Mover, it doesn't deliver much. The most it could hope show is the existence of a designer but not much about the nature of this designer. Hume points out that the designer, while clearly very powerful, may not have been particularly clever for he might have been working from a ready made plan - a Build Your Own Universe kit. It is possible too, that this was one of many attempts at creation. a practice run - and perhaps not a very successful one. Perhaps the designer was in fact a team of designers as is usually the case when large projects are involved. Nor do we know that the designer is immortal. Perhaps he was born and is now dead. Most importantly, what right do we have to assume that the universe was designed with us in mind? Perhaps his real goal was head lice and humans are just a part of a marvelously elaborate infrastructure to support headlice. Perhaps the designer's interest is in something that is happening in a distant part of the universe. Furthermore, the Designer need not be omnipotent. In fact Hume points out that design undermines omnipotence since designs are a strategy needed only by beings of limited powers. An omnipotent being can make something happen by simply willing it and has no need a of design.
Logically this argument is trying to make the case that there can be no other reasonable explanation for the complex systems that we find in nature. The kind of argument, the claim to have exhausted all other possibilities is always a risky one to make. I will talk about this in detail in the section on Intelligent Design.
The Design Argument makes the assumption that complex systems require a an unnatural explanation. The justification for this being that nature herself is mostly chaotic and that complex systems are very rare. This involves a contradiction for if nature is predominantly chaotic, where is the basis to say that it is designed?
Finally the assertion that complex systems must be artifacts is belied by the fact that we find in the world many more examples of natural complicated systems than we do manufactured ones.
By "design" in this discussion we mean the deliberate formation and execution of a plan for a purpose. A design is a plan to solve a problem with limited resources. The purpose might be very pragmatic or it might be whimsical. Men sometimes design things simply to form some pleasing arrangement, such as a painting, and sometimes just for the satisfaction of carrying out the design. Nevertheless in all cases the design is developed and executed to satisfy a desire. When one needs to do something and is confronted by obstacles, one must form a plan- a design to overcome them.
An artifact is an object that has been manufactured according to a design to achieve some purpose. The design is closely linked to the resources that are available. Making a knife when one has ready access to good steel is on thing, making it from stone quite another. The designs will differ profoundly. Finally, artifacts are associated with a context. They are usually found in particular locations and times. We do not usually find a stone axe in a modern carpenter's toolbox, nor do we find television sets at neolithic burial sites. Accordingly, I list four important qualities of an artifact:
By Design I mean the plan used to make the artifact and its physical form which is the embodiment of the plan. By Manufacture I mean the tools and materials that were used. These elements all affect other. The Purpose drives the design , while the Context constrains the manufacture which in turn influences the Design from the other side. If any one of these four elements is absent then we do not have an artifact. We might be looking at the result of an accident on the factory floor, but this is not an artifact in the sense that the Design argument asserts about the natural world. We might find an object that was useful for some purpose but not designed or manufactured, such as a stone used for a hammer. Again this is not an artifact. Finally, all artifacts are associated with their makers and so must exist in some context.
To identify something as an artifact, it is not necessary to have knowledge of all four elements. One can reasonably be convinced an item is an artifact when one doesnt know its purpose or alternatively how it is designed or how it is manufactured. It is even possible to recognize an artifact that seems completely out of context. But, the less we know about one element the more support we demand from the others if we are to judge that something is an artifact.
Turning now to the question of identifying the work of a Divine Designer, we find that we are not in a strong position at all. We know nothing of the purpose since we don't understand the needs of such a designer, nor what problems he faces in satisfying them. To argue that the purpose of a tree is to provide shade for men is circular reasoning. Saying in as much that whatever a thing does is its purpose. Of Design we know only the form which is suggestive of the arrangements of closely interlocking parts that we humans use in our designs. We know nothing of the methods of manufacture. What tools were available in the Cosmic Workshop? And though we do know the the materials we know nothing about the options and alternatives that were available at the point of design. Finally, we have no knowledge at all of context. This universe is all we know. If it is an artifact, we are trapped inside of it. So of the four essential elements, we have only partial knowledge of design and of manufacture.
A common attempt to deflect this last criticism is to reply that we cannot expect to fully understand a Divine Designer. His purposes and means are beyond our experience. "God works in mysterious ways" Perhaps so, but this undermines the very foundation of the argument which depends on the idea that we can recognize God's work by comparing it to that of human's. The less we know about the way God works, the less compelling this argument is.
The classic example is the Watch Maker allegory. Walking along a beach one finds a watch in the sand. Never having seen a watch but examining its intricate mechanism, its use of various metal alloys and glass, the symbols drawn regularly on the face, surel. we woul. assume the existence o. a watch maker. Well yes. I certainly would make that assumption but I come from a culture where we make make things like that. I recognize a mechanical device, the milling marks on the surface of the frame, the careful hammering to dish the shell out of a plate of silver. the use of brass and steel alloys. the knurled knob for the fingers to grip and written symbols used to convey information. Then there is context. This sort of thing is unusual unless it has been made by me. whereas head lice and other living things are everywhere, like it or not. What would a neolithic man make of the watch. He would find it fascinating but why would he assume it to be an artifact? In his experience human artifacts are nothing like this. What would he make of a cell phone. If it beeped and spoke he might well assume it was a living creature that being closest to his experience. Or perhaps he would assum. it was made by God as he believes all living things are.
At its heart, this argument appeals to the fact that we as humans make a lot of things which are all designed to some degree. We are exposed to a great many artifacts and we recognize the work and usually the intention of the men that made them. So when we examine a flower or a bee or a bird and see all the carefully formed components working together in intricate arrangements, we see a reflection of ourselves. Perhaps thinking, "would love to have made that myself if only I were smart enough and powerful enough".
But the strength of this appeal comes at the price of a serious weakness. This argument is parochial in that it sees the universe through the prism of human experience. It says that we recognize the work of a designer like ourselves. We recognize the universe as an artifact. What then does it mean to identify an artifact? This is the central issue and it needs careful consideration.
A design is a plan to solve a problem with limited resources. When one needs to accomplish something, a plan is needed to overcome obstacles. If there are no obstacles then no plan is needed. An artifact is an object that has been made according to a plan. There are usually two designs associated with an object: The design for making the object itself and the purpose for which it is to be used - the object was needed to solve some problem in a larger plan. The design is closely linked to the resources that are available. Making a knife when one has ready access to good steel is one thing, making it from stone quite another. The two designs will differ profoundly. Because artifacts do not arise spontaneously and because they are made under constraints, they have a context . We would not expect to find a can opener inside an Egyptian pyramid, or a TV set on the far side of the moon or a stone knife in a modern carpenter's tool box.
What then do we know of the creator's purpose or means of manufacture. We cant say much about his purpose until we establish that he exists which is the goal of this argument in the first place. Unless we take on faith the various creation accounts in the Bible etc. we have no way of knowing why he made all these things. It is premature to argue from Genesis when we are still trying to establish the very existence of God. What did the creator have in mind when he created head lice. To argue that head lice are all part of a perfect plan is circular reasoning, What is the perfect plan? It is whatever exists. And what do we know of the means at his disposal. Were he omnipotent he would not need all these "contrivances" as Hume calls them. And if he is not, then just how does he work so that we can identify his workmanship. As for context, well there isnt any. All we know is this universe.
Examining an object with this question in mind one tries to guess its purpose, its method of construction and its context. We can identify a knife whether made of steel, plastic, bone or stone because we know its purpose - human beings need and make knives to solve problems familiar to us. We also know the common shapes used for knives and the ways in which they are made. Finally, if one finds the knife in a kitchen or a workshop where knives are used, this clinches the matter if any more support were needed. The stone knife may be a bit more difficult, but when examination shows a regular chipping pattern to form an edge, one recognizes the characteristic workmanship of a stone age culture. Some neolithic cultures developed highly refined techniques producing exquisitely formed stone blade but earlier populations often made crude tools simply by splitting a rock and collecting the sharp flakes. The origin of such an article is ambiguous but context can make the decision. If the flake is found near a camp fire, or far from the natural source for this kind of stone. this lends support to the claim that it is an artifact. Archeologists may also discover a carefully formed item whose purpose they don't recognize. However. the material from which it is made. the manner in which it was worked and its context can all combine to support the claim that this is an artifact. In all such cases we recognize the sort of things we might have made had we been in in those situations.
Sed in lectus in nisl rutrum laoreet. Nunc ut lorem. Vestibulum ut est et sem rhoncus vulputate. Vivamus venenatis, nunc ac dapibus accumsan, risus urna varius pede, quis elementum diam urna et orci. Pellentesque luctus auctor nisi. Mauris tempus justo eu leo. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam quis mauris et nulla varius tincidunt. Fusce dolor sapien, tempus vel, facilisis vel, ultrices ut, quam. Etiam nisl dui, semper at, auctor ac, gravida quis, leo. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Nulla facilisi. Morbi risus lacus, pharetra in, pulvinar quis, sagittis et, felis. Sed dui eros, hendrerit ut, gravida eu, eleifend eget, risus. Donec ligula. Praesent felis. Suspendisse et lacus vitae sem ultricies posuere. Nunc metus tellus, rhoncus porta, posuere in, pulvinar non, leo. Pellentesque et ipsum sed lectus hendrerit elementum. Morbi quam magna, tincidunt sit amet, lacinia vitae, varius id, lacus.
Maecenas feugiat turpis et mauris. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Aliquam mauris leo, hendrerit fringilla, sagittis et, condimentum at, sapien. Suspendisse sagittis velit ut dui. In dictum mi a mauris. Nullam metus diam, ultricies vitae, hendrerit sit amet, sodales ut, libero. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Nulla orci magna, luctus vitae, sagittis eleifend, consectetur vitae, magna. Pellentesque diam mi, ultrices in, volutpat vel, convallis vestibulum, purus. Donec libero turpis, sodales non, posuere vel, sollicitudin at, nisi. Vestibulum tristique purus. Cras fermentum magna sit amet diam cursus mollis. Duis aliquam sodales nisi. Nulla facilisi. Sed pulvinar. Maecenas enim. Curabitur nibh arcu, placerat id, sagittis ut, pulvinar id, lacus. Sed luctus. Praesent lacus ante, ultricies at, aliquet quis, imperdiet eleifend, neque.
Nunc molestie, enim ultrices blandit posuere, quam ante facilisis augue, varius rhoncus libero tellus a nibh. Duis dapibus porta nisi. Pellentesque quis nisi. Etiam interdum sapien vel nibh. Ut justo. Praesent ultricies vulputate justo. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec in odio. Aenean non dolor quis augue feugiat tempus. In ut magna. Nullam porttitor neque et mauris. Suspendisse tempor facilisis nisl. Aliquam erat volutpat. Nullam feugiat vehicula magna. Donec eu dolor.
Proin vel elit id nisl molestie rutrum. Mauris lacus arcu, pretium sed, molestie id, placerat id, mi. Duis eu urna eu nibh fermentum dictum. Vivamus vitae lacus. Proin ut justo a risus tempor fermentum. Nulla pellentesque lobortis est. Integer nisl risus, tincidunt id, euismod quis, sollicitudin in, libero. Sed viverra lacinia massa. Nunc fermentum, orci vel vulputate dapibus, diam turpis adipiscing dolor, ut pharetra orci nulla quis erat. Cras porta blandit lacus. Fusce dapibus, sapien a aliquet pulvinar, nibh magna convallis neque, in bibendum nisi velit in elit. Morbi a odio at arcu hendrerit vulputate. Suspendisse potenti. Nam in enim. Aenean sagittis porta turpis. Integer aliquet. Duis lacus. Nulla facilisi.