the argument by design proceeds from the fact that the universe seems to be ordered. thomas aquinas even went so far as to say that "we see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, always act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way so as to attain the best result." gosh, if that's how you see the universe -- if you see raindrops and rocks as beings that "act for an end" and "act to attain the best result," then you have such a flowery view of the universe that nobody would be surprised that you actually see god everywhere, and you probably talk to big-eyed puppies and still believe in the tooth fairy.
why the cynical tone of this essay? probably because the argument by design is one of the most naive sophisms around.
the universe looks like it was designed by an intelligent being because it looks like it is too ordered. therefore, in the argument by design, we assume that there is actually an intelligent being that designed it.
but such an assumption is only probable! at best, what we are doing is making an analogy between the universe and an artifact, and positing that just as the artifact has an artificer or architect, the universe must have one, too.
such a way of thinking leads to some pretty strange conclusions, actually. if we are going to follow the analogy behind the argument by design, then we can actually assume that the universe was created in the same way that humans create houses or chairs. such an idea ought to be rejected by the believers themselves, for they believe that the universe was created out of nothing.
also, since there are visible imperfections in the universe, shouldn't we ascribe these imperfections to the creator? isn't a flawed watch a sign that the watchmaker didn't know what he or she was doing? it seems that the creator wasn't a very good designer after all. maybe the creator isn't perfect, or was lazy, or didn't care about designing a house that has cracks in the plaster finish or sagging beams in the attic or leaky faucets. is the creator a slum lord? a crooked contractor who pocketed the money and built something with cheaper materials of less quality? the department of transportation that never seems to get road building right?
finally, we know that the more complicated the project, usually the more people are involved in its construction. so we should conclude that the argument by design is a proof not of god but of many gods. this is a proof for polytheism.
and the funniest thing about it is that the universe sometimes seems so messed up and seems to be going in a million different directions at once that we should conclude that there were many creators and some of them didn't quite agree and still don't agree on where the universe should go. rival gods of olympus, perhaps?
also, there appears the disturbing possibility, if we cling to our idea that because the universe looks designed therefore it must have been designed and created by someone, that the creator could have designed and created, and continues to design and create, myriads of other universes. that maybe the creator has botched up several of his or her attempts at making universes. maybe this universe we're in is one the creator's rejected botched universes.
see, the problem is that we notice something that looks like order, then assume that this setup in the universe that seems to be order must be order. it could actually all have come up by chance -- evolution and chaos theory. of course, for the lazy sophist unwilling to read up on scientific research, it is much easier to just assume a creator waved a magic wand.
the problem with the analogy behind this argument by design is that we assume that whenever we see any semblance of order, we assume that someone designed it that way. perhaps this is because in our daily lives, most of the things we see are ordered because someone did it: stacks of firewood, patchwork quilts, pancakes.
consider, however, that it is wrong to compare the order of the universe to that of a human-made order. there are other systems of order -- biological forces, geologic forces -- that make plants grow and cause pancakes to sort of happen by chance. perhaps, then, it is equally likely that the universe was not designed by a creator or artificer or architect but was grown like a plant? or is the result of chance?
in that case, we might as well assume that the universe is a cosmic seed planted and growing. or it is ordered on the back of a giant turtle. and one of these days, the creators will finally get it right.
go back to the [articles] page