The Argument from Design
Suppose you are walking the beach and you find a watch. You immediately assume the watch was created
by some intelligence (probably a human being).
On the other hand, if find a collection of randomly assorted stones, you will not think that there was some
intelligence involved. In this case, it is natural to assume that impersonal natural forces are at work
Question: what is the difference between the watch and the stones?
Paley:
In the case of the watch, you observe a functional unity. Each of the parts has a purpose related to the
whole—if these parts are altered, the watch would no longer function.
Each of the parts has to be “just right” for the mechanism to function.
Therefore, we are reasonable in supposing that some intelligence produced the watch, that it was not the
result of random forces.
In nature we observe the same functionality, the same evidence of design. Therefore, it is reasonable to
suppose that nature as a whole has a designer (God).
Questions:
Suppose you never saw a watch before and did not know how they were made. Would you still conclude
that the strange thing on the beach (the “watch”) was the product of intelligent design?
Is it true that nature exhibits the appearance of design? If so, is an intelligent designer the best explanation
for this appearance? (Does evolutionary theory provide an alternative, empirically confirmed explanation
of the appearance of design?)
This argument claims to infer the nature of a cause (God) from the effects (nature). Using this principle of
inference, what should we conclude about the nature of the designer? (For example, should we conclude
that God is concerned with our welfare, indifferent, or hostile?)
A contemporary version of the argument from design is the Fine Tuning Argument.
This argument relies on the fact that, in order for the universe to contain life, the natural laws and initial
conditions of the universe have to be within very restricted limits. For example, if the force of the big bang
explosion differed by as little as 1 in 1060, the universe would have either collapsed into itself or expanded
to rapidly for stars to form.
Life would not possible if the electromagnetic force was even slightly different from what it actually is.
Does this appearance of fine tuning give us reason to think there is a designer? Or does it give us reason to
think there arean indefinite number of different universes—we just happen to be in one of the few that
allow for life? Or does it show none of these things?