Classical design, Contemporary design, & Fine-tuning argument

design argument definition

(a) Undoubtedly the most popular argument for God's existence is the teleological argument. Like the cosmological argument, it is a causal argument. But it emphasizes means-ends (telos-means an end or a goal/purpose) structure or order found in the universe."[1] [1] Peterson et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 93.

Behe's argument irreducible complexity

· Broadly under the intelligent design movement. Behe thinks his argument overcomes Darwinian evolution explanation, insight: irreducible complexity. how you get the biological system that is pointed to as this shows evidence of design (various parts working together to accomplish function). Took place gradual change but the information was "built in"

privileged planet argument

(1) ): there are these "coincidences" that allow humans to know about the Universe, to have scientific knowledge of Universe and they are characteristics that don't seem necessary on a chance/evolutionary story. These "coincidences" allow us to know about Universe in which we live (i) Relationship and distance of earth, moon, & sun: allow solar eclipses. Seems unnecessary that moon is perfect size to block out sun that allows us to observe the edge (ii) We are able to see out our world, which is not required for life. Able to observe & learn about our Universe. Seem to be pointing to a fine tuning to knowledge

atheistic multi-universe hypothesis

(1) : in addition to our Universe that are others like ours. Eternity path of expanding and contracting and creating new Universes and some splitting off there are new constants and quantities. Huge array of Universes there will be some that have the constant and quantities that will support life.

evaluation atheistic multi-universe hypothesis

(1) Evaluation: appealing to a hypothesis that has no possibility of being empirically verified. Alternate Universes that cannot be accessed physically through our Universe. Some say this hypothesis helps explain other things, but this hypothesis seems to point to fine-tuning once again, ad-hoc hypothesis (come up with hypothesis just to explain a particular phenomenon, which is not good hypotheses). (2) -Commonly recognized phenomenon in fine-tuning, what these constants are we can look at examples, these must be in life permitting range for there even to be possibility of life. Naturalistic says it must be this or this was chance we got incredibly lucky. A designer that set it up this way is more plausible. Otherwise have to appeal to multiple Universes, but then still have to explain how you get Universes through the expansion and contraction method (problems). Can't prove from fine-tuning that God exists but the evidence is very strong that an intelligence set up for there to be life, us.

contemporary biological design arguments cont

(1) Even with the conclusion of designer it still doesn't tell us much about designer. But if we can conclude there is a designer we can conclude some things about designer. Then can rule out chance (atheism model). Then look at of the design options which has most evidence for it. Cosmological arguments argue together for who designer is but design argument may not explain who the designer is/characteristics. (2) If designer argument correct it is a problem for atheist & naturalist

design objection cont

(1) Naturalistic evolution explains the appearance of design (a) Dawkins: "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."[1] (b) If there is a designer the eye can be explained pretty clearly (c) Naturalist: will try to say that there is an explanation to explain the natural biological system without a designer. Some form of variation and natural selection (d) Hume: writing before Darwin. Basically, says even if there is a God we can't know much about him, etc. But now have "hypothesis" to explain the data. (I) Takes us to contemporary debate of biological design: random selection, genetic mutation, etc. "Answer" to biological diversity through these processes. (a) Some theists/Christians: will say God created the world and initial parameters that through a process (process Neo-Darwinian evolution) resulted in all of life we have today. Thought of as theistic evolution. (b) Can't give sufficient evidence for biological diversity

response Darwinainism & irreducible complexity

(1) The argument stated[1] (i) Molecular machines evidence specified complexity. (ii) Specified complexity cannot be explained on the basis of chance or necessity. (iii) Intelligent agency is a known cause which produces specified complexity. (iv) Therefore, the best explanation of the origin of specified complexity in molecular machines is intelligent design. (2) Way to move forward (if pushing back against designer arguments) is to ask why someone thinks Darwinian explanation so plausible? They may just be appealing to consensus (3) Recognizing that for many people have been taught that this is obvious (Dawinianism) and a designer is ridiculous (4) Have to come to question of can you get to biological systems that are irreducibly complex from no information & slowly evolved? Unlikely. But hypothesis from a designer actually fits.

fine-tuning design argument

(Begin with specialized catalog properties. Pointing to things that have indication that there is a mind and intentionality behind it)- design -Has to be number of factors arranged in a particular sort of way in order to even have life: fine tuning argument pointing to

reply design argument objections

(I) Even if someone has never seen a watch, you don't have to know how its made to make an inference of design. (a) Ex: letting someone see computer who has never seen one. Then ask if it would make sense if there was a maker/designer? Yes, even if they don't know how it's made. (II) _Look at the eye or specific things in nature or biological systems to see design rather than Universe as a whole

3 ways capture logical structure of argument (deductive)

(I) Some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are design-like (exhibit a cognition-resonating, intention-shaped character R) (II) Design-like properties (R) are not producible by (unguided) natural means—i.e., any phenomenon exhibiting such Rs must be a product of intentional design. (III) Therefore some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are products of intentional design. And of course, the capacity for intentional design requires agency of some type. Can deduce that that thing is designed (IV) Nice about deductive: logic is easy to follow. Each argument has strengths and weaknesses

3 ways capture logical structure of argument (inference to best explanation)

(I) Some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) exhibit exquisite complexity, delicate adjustment of means to ends (and other relevant R characteristics). (II) The hypothesis that those characteristics are products of deliberate, intentional design (Design Hypothesis) is the best available overall explanation of them. (III) Therefore (probably) some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are products of deliberate, intentional design (i.e., the Design Hypothesis is likely true). Arguing that some phenomenon needs an explanation All design arguments can be presented different way but all have same content

physical necessity (William Lane Craig deductive version)

(More fundamental law objection, p.139) all united in one fundamental law, so all principles must be united under. (1) Spin each dial, come up with life permitting on each dial (even though extremely unlikely). Fundamental law at center of Universe "set" all these laws by turning them where they need to be. Still fundamental law that seems fine-tuned* (2) Have to be in place for any kind of intelligent life form

Chance (William Lane Craig deductive version)

(Support for Premise 2, p.138)Each of these dials could have been "spun" and come up to life giving range seems like the chance giving answer of naturalism because there is no design built it. That possibility seems really really unlikely. At this point we have strong argument for God's existence.

3 ways capture logical structure of argument (Analogical)

(a) Analogical arguments (Under Inductive argument category) (I) Natural Entity e is like specified human artifact a (e.g., a machine) in relevant respects R. (II) a has R precisely because it is a product of design by intelligent human agency. (III) Like effects typically have like causes (or like explanations). (I) Therefore it is likely that e has R precisely because it too is a product of deliberate design by intelligent agency. (II) Something in natural world/human artifact that has these characteristics, these characteristics conclude explanation is a design by a designer, and then another object same way so can probably conclude by a designer

Hume's presentation design argument

(a) Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions, to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man; though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work, which he has executed.

Paley's argument

(a) Starts with watch in field while walking, wouldn't think watch has been there forever because has all these parts working together to accomplish function. From that we immediately infer that there is an intelligent designer. (b) Focused on ways we make inferences to design (see parts working together to accomplish function). But goes on outlining various things in nature that exhibit these kind of indicators of design. Then talks about the human eye: (I) Eye resembles camera, more accurate comparison than telescope (II) Philo (in doc?): thinks maybe there is a designer, but can't think designer is good (III) Hume: generally skeptical but even acknowledges when presented the evidence, its pretty strong

characteristics teleological arguments

(a) Teleological arguments (or arguments from design)... begin with a... specialized catalogue of properties and end with a conclusion concerning the existence of a designer with the intellectual properties (knowledge, purpose, understanding, foresight, wisdom, intention) necessary to design the things exhibiting the special properties in question. In broad outline, then, teleological arguments focus upon finding and identifying various traces of the operation of a mind in nature's temporal and physical structures, behaviors and paths. Order of some significant type is usually the starting point of design arguments.

2 types phenomenon for design argument explanation

(a) The Universe as a whole exhibits certain properties to conclude there is a designer (b) _Or argue about particular things within the Universe to conclude there is a designer

Conclusion (Collin's Inference to Best explanation)

(i) From premises (1) and (2) and the prime principle of confirmation, it follows that the fine-tuning data provide strong evidence to favor the design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. (ii) Prime principle of confirmation: principle of probability that saying that if a hypothesis would lead you to expect some phenomenon then the existence of that phenomenon gives evidence of that hypothesis (iii) Which hypotheses would lead us to suspect the phenomenon. (iv) Collins recognizes that other considerations, his argument may not make you believe in God. But this evidence points to a God and is very strong evidence. Making a court case, piling all the evidence you can to make case strong.

Collins scientific evidence

(i) If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as one part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. (ii) Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as five percent, life would be impossible. (iii) Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 1040, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (iv) If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible. (v) If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons.

Collin's Inference to Best explanation Premises

(i) PREMISE 1: The existence of the fine-tuning is not improbable under theism. (i) PREMISE 2: The existence of the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. (i) CONCLUSION: From premises (1) and (2) and the prime principle of confirmation, it follows that the fine-tuning data provide strong evidence to favor the design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

Premise 1 (Collin's Inference to Best explanation)

(i) The existence of the fine-tuning is not improbable under theism. (a) Assumption that conscious body life is good, so God has reason to bring it about. Even atheist can grant that if there were a God would it be really surprising where God would create world with conscious embodied life? Yes. Some also say, how can we know what God would do? (b) Don't have to say its really likely that God would create conscious embodied life, we just have to say that it is not unlikely that He would

premise 2 (Collin's Inference to Best explanation)

(i) The existence of the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. (a) Each of these dials could have been "spun" and come up to life giving range seems like the chance giving answer of naturalism because there is no design built it. That possibility seems really really unlikely. At this point we have strong argument for God's existence

William Lane Craig deductive version

(i) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. (ii) It is not due to physical necessity or chance. (i) So it is due to design.

Collins scientific fine tuning argument

-These arguments are uncontroversial fine-tuned. Assuming big bang cosmology -Under facts he explains in simple terms: radio dials turned to right place is improbable. Then multiple radio dials pointed in precise range together is very improbable. -Don't need memorize to get the force of the argument, can reference the general scientific consensus for life to develop. -Even if we assume that life came about through Naturalistic, but still have to have constants and quantities that are particularly arranged in place for life to develop. -Chance process: ending up with life is very improbable whereas theism process is more probable. -All of these things in particular range, how do we get an explanation?

Darwinian & naturalistic response

Assuming laws of nature, gravitational force etc., assuming a lot. Why is it that we have these laws and quantities to be possible (fine-tuning argument; strongest of design arguments). Pointing to designer that is necessary to give these laws and constants

Argument from the existence of life itself

Darwin never gave an explanation of how we went from non-life to life. Even from non-theists agree we don't have good explanation for how we go from non-life to life (no good naturalistic accounts)

due to design (William Lane Craig deductive version)

In order to explain design we have to understand designer. Who designed God then? At some level we are going to have something that doesn't need a further explanation. Contingent and necessary things don't need further explanation. Explanation comes from the necessity of its nature: God is that kind of entity (could there point to cosmological argument) (1) Separate question, we are just trying to infer that the Universe is due to design (not explain who explained the designer)

Objections and replies Hume

It's a bad analogy to compare man-made objects and the universe as a whole. If we see a house, Cleanthes, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that species of effect, which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how that pretension will be received in the world, I leave you to consider... -Why do we infer that when we see house its built by a designer? Because we've seen houses being built in the past, past experience. -Can you pretend to show any such similarity between the fabric of a house, and the generation of a universe? Have you ever seen Nature in any such situation as resembles the first arrangement of the elements? Have worlds ever been formed under your eye? and have you had leisure to observe the whole progress of the phenomenon, from the first appearance of order to its final consummation? If you have, then cite your experience, and deliver your theory. -Says there is a bad analogy. We infer that houses are designed because we've experienced it before. Have we experienced Universe being designed? No, so can't make inferences.

contemporary biological design arguments

Looking at biological life that it couldn't have come by chance- must've been results of design 1. Phenomenon needs explanation Apparent design b. Eye (explanations) chance or design 1. What can we know about designer c. Maybe intelligence to start things off that no longer exists d. Maybe designer of our world isn't of supreme intelligence but a new designer e. Maybe lots of designers/or teams i. Atheism ii. Some sort of theism iii. Polytheism

Aquina's teleological argument

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore (a) some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God

Argument from Information in DNA (Stephen Meyer)

computer like properties within DNA, Meyers argues that there is at least one appearance of a designer in biology; at level of DNA there is language like code & attempts to explain that in naturalistic chance process have shown to be problematic.

prime principle of confirmation

principle of probability that saying that if a hypothesis would lead you to expect some phenomenon then the existence of that phenomenon gives evidence of that hypothesis

Darwinian Explanation (Behe's argument irreducible complexity)

· There are other biological systems without fully developed eyes but light sensitive spot. Look at other animals with more sophisticated systems. o Start with simple system -> more complex (step by step by step et. each step a functional biological system) -> until you get to the complex eye o But Behe arguing that if you can't point to a system without step by step development then Darwinian explanation false § Can look at certain biological systems we can see they are irreducibly complex. (no plausible explanation of how you go from simple to complex in those) · Bacterial Flagellum (Cilia): has all parts that work together (motor design) & if took any one part away it wouldn't have a biological function · Context: how do these type arguments strike a nonbeliever? Depends how much person has "accepted" Neo-Darwinian or naturalistic explanation. May cling to it because it was what they were taught.