The Designer Argument

[David Sklansky]

This seems so simple and obvious to me that I wonder whether I am missing something.

If you come upon something very complex that appears to be designed, you should start off with the assumption that it probably was. Sort of similar to the assumption that you would make if you noticed someone playing perfect basic strategy in blackjack. Big favorite he read it or calculated it.

In order to start thinking that the thing probaly wasn't designed, you pretty much need to notice two things.

1. Lots of other SIMILAR stuff that appears designed actually isn't. For instance soap bubbles that always have the smallest surface area. Or the formation of flying birds. It also helps to be able to describe the simple rules that give rise to those complex structures.

2. There is scant evidence that a designer of these complex structures even exists.

In the blackjack example suppose the player was illiterate, and living on another planet with trillions of other players. Players passed on their strategies (which they were free to alter based on experience) to their offspring. And any player who was losing more than .2% of his total action after a year of continuous playing died.

After a million years, everybody would be playing perfect basic strategy. And if we came upon them and understood their talents, trials and tribulations, we would now be willing to bet that their perfect strategy was NOT designed.
But it is ONLY BECAUSE of these specific circumstances that we put aside the reasonable assertion that the complexity points to a design. There is nothing wrong with that argument as a stareting place.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems so simple and obvious to me that I wonder whether I am missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]
what you're missing is the conclusion that there exists something complex that wasn't designed.

Does it really need atheist morons to point out that that argument is boohilly?

chez

[luckyme]

You're trapped in a semantic tangle.

There are things that are designed. That does not mean there is designER in any anthropomorphic sense. It's forcing semantics onto reality that causes the problem.

luckyme

[Subfallen]

Most precisely, the Argument from Design fails because it begs the question (Wiki.) The AD's "semantic tangle" (specifically, its scope violation) hides a premise that implicitly assumes the conclusion.

The hidden premise is: that it is actually meaningful to put "universes" in the category of "things with (D)esigners."

Of course, once you are given this premise, it's easy to look at the insanely low entropy of the Big Bang, wave your hands, and summon God.

But an honest presentation of the DA would read like this:

1. God exists. (By inspection.)
--------------------------------
2. QED.

[Stu Pidasso]

"If you come upon something very complex that appears to be designed, you should start off with the assumption that it probably was."

What do you mean by "very complex"? An atheist finds it a a mere coincidence that during a solar eclipse the moon precisely covers the sun. A theist would say its more likely to be by design. For the vast majority of the earth/moon system's existence this precise relationship did not exist. Does the fact that it exist at the same time man also exist increase the likelyhood of a grand designer?

Stu

[Phil153]

Look, the argument is basically this:

- Complex things are designed
- The world is complex
- Therefore, the world is designed

The language "if something looks designed" just obscures that first premise (that all complex things are designed), and it works because it appeals to common human experience with the most frequently encountered everyday objects.

So it comes down to the reasonableness of the premise that "complex things are designed", which is the very question we started with ("was the world designed")?

That's why it's not a logical proof of anything, and is pretty much worthless. The only thing in question is whether complexity can and did arise from simpler laws, and this logical proof doesn't weigh on that at all, since the question is purely empirical.

If we lived in a universe where complex objects (like computers) spontaneously and instantly formed out of nothing, AND we understand how this arose from simpler rules, the designer argument would get guffaws. But because we live in a world where the accumulation of reproducible complexity is extremely slow, relative to human experience, the argument seems viable on the surface.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, the argument is basically this:

- Complex things are designed
- The world is complex
- Therefore, the world is designed

The language "if something looks designed" just obscures that first premise (that all complex things are designed), and it works because it appeals to common human experience with the most frequently encountered everyday objects.

So it comes down to the reasonableness of the premise that "complex things are designed", which is the very question we started with ("was the world designed")?

That's why it's not a logical proof of anything, and is pretty much worthless. The only thing in question is whether complexity can and did arise from simpler laws, and this logical proof doesn't weigh on that at all, since the question is purely empirical.

If we lived in a universe where complex objects (like computers) spontaneously and instantly formed out of nothing, AND we understand how this arose from simpler rules, the designer argument would get guffaws. But because we live in a world where change is extremely slow, relative to human experience, the argument seems viable on the surface.



[/ QUOTE ]
As far a the argument of design being viable on the surface:

Phil, when I look through my room , I can damn well see what is designed. My chair has to be designed, it has squares in it. Squares aren’t a natural, explainable, part of the universe. Nothing in the natural world forms a square ( which is simple and non-complex). If I saw one square or cubicle galaxy among all the others, I’d concur that their was a design. Otherwise, every thing pretty much looks random, whether that means a designer or not ( and of course, randomness can't be proven one way or the other.)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil, when I look through my room , I can damn well see what is designed. My chair has to be designed, it has squares in it. Squares aren’t a natural, explainable, part of the universe. Nothing in the natural world forms a square ( which is simple and non-complex).

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying this is not natural?



Emergence is natural and that image is an example of it.

Stu

[hexag1]

Sklansky,

The line of thought you have taken:
1. the flying formation of birds wasn't designed (false
and
2. no evidence for a designer (true)

In point 1 give to dissimilar examples. You're right that soap bubbles do not appear to have design. They just happen that way because of the laws of physics. Their shape is a direct consequence of the laws, nothing further is required.

Then you go on to say that the formation of flying birds wasn't designed. I think you are dead wrong here. The formation of the birds was indeed designed, ITS JUST THAT THERE WAS NO CONSCIOUS DESIGNER! The clothes have no Emperor.
This is a very important distinction to make. Darwinism holds that complex organisms and phenomena (e.g. the aerodynamic V of migrating geese) are indeed designed, BY NATURAL SELECTION. Natural selection is a mindless algorithmic process that can lead to designed things.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
As far a the argument of design being viable on the surface:

Phil, when I look through my room , I can damn well see what is designed. My chair has to be designed, it has squares in it. Squares aren’t a natural part of the universe. If I saw one square or cubicle galaxy among all the others, I’d concur that their was a design. Otherwise, every thing pretty much looks as if there were no designer ( of course, I, nor anyone, could prove this ).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Stu, I was just now thinking of the formation of Crystals when suddenly you posted. All right, that's cool, I stand by what I said earlier, no galaxy will form a square shape under our laws of physics, if one does, one can conclude a design.