The Argument from Design
Mon, 01/21/2008 - 18:33 — admin
MICHAEL: Basically, Hume says that if one examines the world, he will find that it's simply a huge machine which is composed of an infinite number of even smaller machines which in turn are composed of even smaller machines. These machines, he says, fit together and operate in a very precise and accurate manner. The universe seems quite well designed. The relationship of means to ends is similar to products produced through human design, intelligence, etc. Since the effects are so similar, we can also believe that the causes are similar and that the designer of nature is similar to the mind of man. The author of nature, however, is endowed with greater faculties which are proportionate to the universal scheme of accomplishment. Also, the functioning and capabilities of man and other animals are evidence that this design is benevolent in nature.1
TEACHER: Well, if that is Hume's argument, what are his criticisms?
MICHAEL: For one thing, he states that the argument from design is one from analogy and that this in itself is a weak form of argument. Specifically, he attacks the analogy between the universe and a machine and says that it would be much more in order to compare the world to a vegetable or animal than to a machine. The cause of the universe would then be like the cause of an animal or a vegetable, namely, something similar to vegetation or generation.
TEACHER: The point in question is not whether or not a machine is perfectly analogous to the universe; obviously, if any analogy is pushed far enough, it will have its shortcomings. The real point being made is that sophisticated design implies the existence of a designer. By implying that the universe is better compared to a vegetable or an animal than to a piece of precision machinery, nothing is done to undercut this point. In the first place, it's not a better analogy! If we consider the movements of the luminaries in the sky, for example, they obviously resemble a time piece much more than a vegetable. So if the strength of the argument hinges on the type of analogy, or the best use of analogy, as Hume says it does, then obviously his own comparison is the weaker of the two.
What's more, where is the evidence that generation or vegetation is not based on design? Modern science has afforded us the opportunity to examine plants and animals not only as singular units, but also to peer into the minute cells which compose them. Of course, Hume had no access to this information, but we now know that even the simplest cell is a very complex arrangement of protein molecules, DNA, RNA, etc. The design of even the E. coli bacterium is far more intricate than the greatest machine built by man.2
MICHAEL: But to bring in arguments about animals, vegetables, cells, etc., and indicate that they are products of design-don't you have to prove this? And wouldn't that proof also have to be through the same process of analogy-for instance, by comparing them to a machine, just as with the analogy to the universe?
Often people try so hard to find happiness through sense pleasure that they may attempt to gratify several or all of their senses at the same time. For example, you may simultaneously be watching TV, listening to the radio, munching potato chips, sipping beer, and smoking a cigarette. Perhaps you may have your arm around the shoulders of your girlfriend or boyfriend. You may also have a magazine at your side, which you look at during commercials. You try to fill up every sense; yet still you’re not satisfied; still you want something more.The Argument from Design
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
MICHAEL: Basically, Hume says that if one examines the world, he will find that it's simply a huge machine which is composed of an infinite number of even smaller machines which in turn are composed of even smaller machines. These machines, he says, fit together and operate in a very precise and accurate manner. The universe seems quite well designed. The relationship of means to ends is similar to products produced through human design, intelligence, etc. Since the effects are so similar, we can also believe that the causes are similar and that the designer of nature is similar to the mind of man. The author of nature, however, is endowed with greater faculties which are proportionate to the universal scheme of accomplishment. Also, the functioning and capabilities of man and other animals are evidence that this design is benevolent in nature.1
TEACHER: Well, if that is Hume's argument, what are his criticisms?
MICHAEL: For one thing, he states that the argument from design is one from analogy and that this in itself is a weak form of argument. Specifically, he attacks the analogy between the universe and a machine and says that it would be much more in order to compare the world to a vegetable or animal than to a machine. The cause of the universe would then be like the cause of an animal or a vegetable, namely, something similar to vegetation or generation.
TEACHER: The point in question is not whether or not a machine is perfectly analogous to the universe; obviously, if any analogy is pushed far enough, it will have its shortcomings. The real point being made is that sophisticated design implies the existence of a designer. By implying that the universe is better compared to a vegetable or an animal than to a piece of precision machinery, nothing is done to undercut this point. In the first place, it's not a better analogy! If we consider the movements of the luminaries in the sky, for example, they obviously resemble a time piece much more than a vegetable. So if the strength of the argument hinges on the type of analogy, or the best use of analogy, as Hume says it does, then obviously his own comparison is the weaker of the two.
What's more, where is the evidence that generation or vegetation is not based on design? Modern science has afforded us the opportunity to examine plants and animals not only as singular units, but also to peer into the minute cells which compose them. Of course, Hume had no access to this information, but we now know that even the simplest cell is a very complex arrangement of protein molecules, DNA, RNA, etc. The design of even the E. coli bacterium is far more intricate than the greatest machine built by man.2
MICHAEL: But to bring in arguments about animals, vegetables, cells, etc., and indicate that they are products of design-don't you have to prove this? And wouldn't that proof also have to be through the same process of analogy-for instance, by comparing them to a machine, just as with the analogy to the universe?