Taking it further: the Design Argument

1
Taking it furtherthe Design Argument
2
Fine-tuned Universe (1)

• Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision
  of natures physical constants, and the beginning
  state of the Universe. To explain the present
  state of the universe, even the best scientific
  theories require that the physical constants of
  nature and the beginning state of the Universe
  have extremely precise values. (Biologos)
• The mere fact that it is enormously improbable
  that an event occurredby itself, gives us no
  reason to think that it occurred by design . As
  intuitively tempting as it may be (Kenneth
  Himma)

3
Fine-tuned Universe (2)

• George N. Schlesinger argues what would be your
  reaction to two different events?
• John wins a one-in-1 billion lottery game. You
  are not immediately tempted to think that John
  (or someone acting on his behalf) cheated.
• If, however, John won three consecutive
  one-in-1,000 lotteries, you would be tempted to
  think that John (or someone acting on his behalf)
  cheated.
• Schlesinger argues that the intuitive reaction to
  these two scenarios is epistemically justified
  The structure of the latter event is such that
  itjustifies a belief that intelligent design is
  the cause . Despite the fact that the
  probability of winning three consecutive
  one-in-1,000 games is exactly the same as the
  probability of winning one one-in-1 billion game,
  the former eventwarrants an inference of
  intelligent design.

4
Fine-tuned Universe (3)

• While Schlesinger is undoubtedly correct in
  thinking that we are justified in suspecting
  design in the case of winning three consecutive
  lotteries, it is because we know two empirical
  facts about such events.
• First, we already know that there exist
  intelligent agents who have the right motivations
  and causal abilities to deliberately bring about
  such events.
• Second, we know from past experience with such
  events that they are usually explained by the
  agency of one or more of these agents.
• The problem for the fine-tuning argument is that
  we lack both of the pieces that are needed to
  justify an inference of design.
• Because we lack this essential background
  information, we are not justified in inferring
  that there exists an intelligent deity who
  deliberately created a universe capable of
  sustaining life.

5
Fine-tuned Universe (4)

• Antony Flew spent most of his life as an
  atheist, however he later converted to deism
  because of the anthropic principle.
• He concluded that the fine-tuning of the
  Universe was too precise to be the result of
  chance and so accepted the existence of God.
• Flew supported the view of Fred Hoyle that the
  universe is too young for life to have developed
  purely by chance and therefore an intelligent
  being must exist
• Some super-calculating intellect must have
  designed the properties of the carbon atom,
  otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom
  through the blind forces of nature would be
  utterly minuscule . Of course you woulda common
  sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
  super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as
  well as with chemistry and biology, and that
  there are no blind forces worth speaking about in
  nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts
  seem to me so overwhelming as to put this
  conclusion almost beyond question. (Hoyle)

6
Argument from improbability (1)

• Richard Dawkins is critical of theology, creation
  and intelligent design.
• He believes the chances of life arising on a
  planet like Earth are many orders of magnitude
  less probable than most people would think, but
  the anthropic principle counters scepticism with
  regard to improbability.
• Fred Hoyle suggested that potential for life on
  Earth was no more probable than a Boeing 747
  being assembled by a hurricane from the
  scrapyard.
• He argued that a one-time event is subject to
  improbability but that natural selection itself
  is nothing like random chance.

7
Argument from improbability (2)

• The argument from improbability, properly
  deployed, comes close to proving that God does
  not exist . The whole argument turns on the
  familiar question Who made God? . A designer
  God cannot be used to explain organized
  complexity because any God capable of designing
  anything would have to be complex enough to
  demand the same kind of explanation in his own
  right. God presents an infinite regress from
  which he cannot help us to escape. This
  argumentdemonstrates that God, though not
  technically disprovable, is very very improbable
  indeed. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)

8
Argument from improbability (3)

• Consider the idea that nature itself is the
  product of design. How could this be
  demonstrated? Natureprovides the basis of
  comparison by which we distinguish between
  designed objects and natural objects. We are able
  to infer the presence of design only to the
  extent that the characteristics of an object
  differ from natural characteristics. Therefore,
  to claim that nature as a whole was designed is
  to destroy the basis by which we differentiate
  between artifacts and natural objects.(George
  H. Smith, Atheism The Case Against God)

9
Argument from improbability (4)

• Supporters of Intelligent Design, such as W. A.
  Dembski, question the philosophical assumptions
  made by its critics in relation to what a
  designer would or would not do.
• They claim that such arguments are not merely
  beyond the realm of science but are often
  theological while failing to provide a serious
  analysis of the hypothetical objectives relative
  merit.
• Some critics, such as S. J. Gould, suggest that
  any purported cosmic designer would only design
  an optimal world, and offer many biological
  criticisms to shows that this ideal is untenable.

10
Argument from improbability (5)

• As he did not claim to know the objectives of the
  designer, Gould could not say whether the
  designer proposed a faulty compromise among the
  purported objectives.
• When they are criticising design, biologists
  often stress the functionalities of individual
  organisms and see design as optimal to the extent
  that it maximises these individual
  functionalities.
• However, the higher-order designs of entire
  ecosystems might require lower-order designs of
  individual organisms if they are to fall short of
  maximal function.