The Argument From Design: Its Issues and the Issues with the Issues
Introducing the Argument from Design:
Suppose you are in the desert and you find a watch on the ground. Immediately you know, a posteriori, that the watch, with its evident complexity, had a designer. Analogously, the universe and the life within it is more intricate than the watch. Therefore, the best explanation for its intricacy is an intelligent designer (some call this God). This is William Paley’s version of the argument from design (Tennant).Criticisms and Attacks on the Argument from Design from Naturalism.
The contemporary naturalist criticizes the argument from design because the naturalists have a better theory to explain the appearance of design in nature. This ‘better’ theory is the New Synthesis: the classical Darwinian model fused with modern genetics. This theory shows how apparent ‘design’ in living organisms could have arisen blindly, through mutations and natural selection, without the need for a sentient designer . If this is true, Paley’s watchmaker was blind ( Dawkins). Since we do not need to posit a God (which has accessory metaphysical implications), we can use Ockham's razor to select the theory with less posits and greater explanatory power, i.e. the New Synthesis. The New Synthesis makes God obsolete (at least from biology).God or Panspermia?
We must distinguish between argument from design and the god of the gaps fallacy, as the naturalist may attempt to equate the two. The argument from design attempts to posit the existence of God from the appearance of design in nature as a best possible scientific theory. The god of the gaps fallacy posits God in response to scientific ignorance. In a way they are linked; both use the supernatural, and not the natural, as a way to explain scientific mysteries of the world. Unlike the god of the gaps fallacy, the argument from design poses itself as a positive hypothesis that can be proven wrong and can make useful predictions about the real world.
For example, if a designer exists, our DNA should have evidence of design.
Therefore, the design hypothesis predicts that a high proportion of our DNA is
functional (98% of our DNA is Junk DNA; however the term actually refers to
non-coding DNA, most of which is useful to the cell) (Mandal). In contrast, the
‘god of the gaps’ fallacy is an argument from ignorance and does not make any
useful predictions about reality.
Regarding phenomena which scientists cannot explain, theists may tend to push God into that gap, however naturalists have their own version of the fallacy; science of the gaps is the belief that everything can eventually be explained by science. For example, the hypothesis of panspermia claims that life on earth did not originate on earth; the first life on earth came from space. Such claims are the result of the naturalist’s implicit allegiance to, and faith in, naturalism (although this is how science works, it’s definitely not the way philosophy works). Because of this, the argument from design could be destined to succeed or fail based on one’s philosophical predisposition! You decide now! God or panspermia?
Regarding phenomena which scientists cannot explain, theists may tend to push God into that gap, however naturalists have their own version of the fallacy; science of the gaps is the belief that everything can eventually be explained by science. For example, the hypothesis of panspermia claims that life on earth did not originate on earth; the first life on earth came from space. Such claims are the result of the naturalist’s implicit allegiance to, and faith in, naturalism (although this is how science works, it’s definitely not the way philosophy works). Because of this, the argument from design could be destined to succeed or fail based on one’s philosophical predisposition! You decide now! God or panspermia?
Abiogenesis
If naturalists point to the New Synthesis to refute the argument from design,
theists will point to abiogenesis to support it. As of today, there exists an
absence of a generally accepted model for the origin of life. Part of the reason is
the conundrum of how the first self-replicating DNA/RNA complex
spontaneously formed. God does seem like a plausible explanation
for abiogenesis, so the argument from design still is valid from this
perspective. Regardless, the neo-darwinian synthesis serves as a challenge to
particularly abrahamic faiths that believe that mankind was a special creation
of God.
Hard Talk
Personally, I don’t like the argument from design because it is only supposed to be the best scientific theory to explain reality. As in all scientific theories, it is based on inductive reasoning and the limited power of the human mind. Also, like all scientific theories, it’s subject to revision, reinvention, and alterations. In the future, new data could reveal that abiogenesis is entirely possible under the naturalistic lens. Therefore, the conclusion that God exists is uncertain via this argument. Faith in God should not be based on something so volatile as science. However, the argument from design is useful against the atheist who places their absolute certainty in science (which they shouldn’t be doing in the first place). Truly, in some aspects of our scientific understanding, particularly with abiogenesis, intelligent design is not an entirely scientifically blasphemous suggestion.
Works Cited:
Tennant, Neil. “The Argument From Design” Introducing Philosophy God,
Mind, World, and Logic, Taylor and Francis, 2015.
Dawkins, Richard. 1986. The blind watchmaker. New York: Norton.
Mandal, Dr Ananya. “What Is Junk DNA?” News-Medical.net, Medical Life Sciences News, 3 Aug. 2017, www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/What-is-Junk-DNA.aspx.