Readings for these slides

Reading 11: Gideon Rosen, “The Argument from

Design”, Princeton University, available online at:
https://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/design.
html

Reading 12: William Paley, “The Watch and the

Watchmaker”, taken from An Introduction to Philosophy,
edited by David E. Ohreen (Toronto: Nelson Education,
2009) pp. 143-146
 Cont’d

Reading 13: David Hume, selections from Dialogues

Concerning Natural Religion, taken from An Introduction to
Philosophy, edited by David E. Ohreen … pp. 146-151

Reading 14: Richard Dawkins, “The Improbability of

God”, taken from An Introduction to Philosophy, edited by
David E. Ohreen … pp. 151-157

Reading 15 (optional): Stephen Davis, “Fine-Tuning:

The New Design Arguments”, from Philosophy and Faith:
A Philosophy of Religion Reader (New York: McGraw Hill,
2002), pp. 222-229
 The basic idea

The argument from design rests on the idea that the

physical world as a whole, and certain parts of it, in
particular, “appear” to have been designed.

Where there is design there must be a designer…

Therefore, God must exist as she is the only possible
designer of the universe.

We will start with William Paley’s version of the

argument from design.
 William Paley (1743-1805)

 Archdeacon in the Church

of England
 Philosopher, utilitarian
thinker
 Strong opponent of slavery
 Argued that women should
be allowed to work
 Argued that poor people
had the right to steal
 Major work: Principles of
Moral and Political Philosophy
"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a
stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I
might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the
contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it be very easy
to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had
found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired
how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly
think of the answer which I had given before, that for
anything I knew the watch might have always been there.”
 Cont’d

“Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well
as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible? When we
come to inspect the watch, we perceive-what we could not
discover in the stone-that its parts are framed and have
been put together. This mechanism being observed, the
inference, we think is inevitable: the watch must have had a
maker, and been designed for a purpose.”
“Every observation which was made concerning the watch
may be repeated with strict propriety concerning the eye,
animals, plants, - indeed all the organised parts of the
works of nature. The eye would be alone sufficient to
support the conclusion which we draw from it, as to the
necessity of an intelligent Creator"

(William Paley, Natural Theology 1802)

 Striking adaptations of living things

Perhaps the most forceful application of the argument

from design is to living things.

Think of how well organisms are adapted to their

environments, and remind yourself how stunning
some of these adaptations are. Examples are shown
in the next slide.

How could these have come into existence if they

were not designed by an intelligent being?
 Note

 If you look at the dates for Paley, you will see that he
lived before Charles Darwin appeared on the scene and
developed the theory of evolution.

 To appreciate the force of Paley’s argument we must

imagine living in his time, before knowing anything
about evolution.

 The British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins once

said: "I could not imagine being an atheist at any time
before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was
published.” This is essentially b/c of Paley’s argument.
Another version of design: “cosmic coincidences”

 This is the idea that the conditions necessary for life to

exist in the universe fall within an incredibly narrow
range.

 If any of several basic constants had had even slightly

different values, life could not have emerged.

 These coincidences cannot be the result of chance, it is

argued, so the universe must have been designed to
make life possible.

 We’ll put this version of the argument aside until later.

Two interpretations of Paley’s argument

Paley’s argument is open to two somewhat different

interpretations:

As what is called an inference to the best

explanation

 As an argument from analogy

The two interpretations are not very different, but still

not exactly the same either.
 Inference to the best explanation

In forming new beliefs, we often make inferences to

the best explanation (IBE) of some fact:

Example – I find that my car won’t start. When I

switch the ignition key the engine doesn’t turn over.
So I infer (form the new belief) that the battery is
dead.

This type of reasoning is also called abduction.(This

has nothing to do with kidnapping.)
The pattern for inference to the best explanation

1. Phenomenon P exists (Description of P)

2. E is the best – most likely, most plausible –
explanation of the existence of P

3. Therefore, it is likely that E is true

_____________________________________________________________________

Example:
- This patient has symptoms X,Y, Z …
- Illness D is the most likely cause of X, Y, Z …

- So the patient likely has illness D.

IBE applied to the cause of the universe

1) The universe exhibits complex order and structure.

2) The best explanation of the existence of this order

and structure is that the universe was designed by
some intelligent being.

3) Therefore, the universe was probably designed by

an intelligent being.
David Hume (1713-1776)

 Born in Scotland
 Worked most of his life as
a civil servant
 Also well known as a
historian
 Famous for his atheism,
which denied him a
university post.
 One of the greatest
philosophers in history
Hume’s objections to design argument

1) The Regress Objection (Raised by Hume in

his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

 If the universe was created by an intelligent

designer, how is the existence of the designer to be
explained? By another designer?

 But then nothing has been accomplished.

 So why bother to posit a designer at all?

 Cont’d

2) There really isn’t that much order and structure in

the universe (also raised by Hume):

 In some ways the universe seems rather chaotic.

 Galaxies collide, stars blow up, dust floats around

randomly, organisms grow old and decay, species
become extinct …

 Is the designer defective then, or incompetent, or

careless?
 From Reading 11 by Rosen

“The Argument from Design presupposes that the natural

facts it cites demand explanation of some sort. So one way
to resist the argument is to grant that the facts really obtain
but deny that they are all that remarkable. For example, it
is often said that the existence of life in the universe is not
all that remarkable. Given the age of the universe and the
vast number of potentially habitable planets, it would be
surprising -- so the story goes -- if life hadn't emerged, not
just here but in a number of places.”
“Some versions of the argument stress the structural
complexity or intricacy of many natural things: crystals,
cells, spider webs and the like are all remarkably complex,
but they are also remarkably regular or orderly. This notion
of orderly complexity is somewhat obscure, and I really
have no idea how it might be measured. A skeptic about the
notion might say, for example, that any collection of rubbish
in a junkyard is [in] a certain sense remarkably complex
…”
3. The order may not result from a designer

 We might agree for the sake of argument that there

is a lot of structure and order in the universe, but
there is no compelling reason to think it has to be
explained by an intelligent designer of the
universe.

 There are other ways in which this order can

plausibly be explained.

 We will look at some other possible explanations

later.
 Rosen

 Gideon Rosen expresses the issue here by asking

whether God “is the only game in town?”

 Can the facts in question, the order in the universe,

only be explained by positing a supreme being?

 We will discuss below evolution theory as an

alternative explanation for some of the remarkable
facts in the world.

 But Rosen also mentions some other possible

explanations. (see next slide)
 From Reading 11 by Rosen

“Some of the ancient atomists seem to have held that the

universe is infinite in both time and space, and that over
time every possible arrangement of particles is realized. If
this were the case then it would not be surprising that at
some point in the history of the world there should be
arrangements like the arrangements we find --
arrangements which present an illusory appearance of
design” (if you don’t know the whole story).
 Cont’d

 To illustrate the point Rosen makes in the previous

slide, we think it would be very unlikely that a fair
coin would land heads 10 times in a row.

 But imagine that a coin is tossed endlessly. Then we

would expect simply as a matter of chance that there
would be stretches of 10 heads in a row or more.

 So here, then, once we see the broader context, there

is no need to posit anything other than chance to
explain the 10 heads in a row.
 Cont’d

“In a related vein, some speculative cosmologists have

maintained that the physical universe we inhabit is one of
infinitely many such universes. On this view, every possible
universe -- i.e., every possible set of laws of nature; every
possible configuration of particles in space -- is actually
realized somewhere in a vast "pluriverse". If this were the
case, then again, it would not be surprising that some
universes support intelligent life and display the hallmarks of
apparent design.”
Paley’s Reasoning as an Argument
from Analogy

(This is not so different from the IBE

interpretation)
The form of arguments from analogy

Arguments from analogy have the following basic

form:

1 A is similar to B in possessing features 1, 2, 3 ...

2 A also possesses some additional feature N

_____________________________

3 Therefore, B probably also possesses feature N

 Paley’s argument by analogy

Certain features of a watch lead us to the conclusion

that it was designed; its clockwork perfection, its
organizational structure.

These lead us to think it did not come to exist by

accident, but that some intelligent mind must have
designed it.

The universe exhibits the same kind of complexity and

organization as a watch. So it is likely that the
universe was also designed.
 A little more detail

Artefacts (like a watch) are products of intelligent design.

The universe resembles artefacts in certain respects –
complexity, organization, reliable functioning, and the
like.
Therefore, the universe is also the product of intelligent
design, like the watch.
But the universe is complex and gigantic.
Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly
intelligent being who designed the universe.
Components of arguments from analogy

1) The subject – what the argument is trying to

establish a conclusion about

2) The analogue – the thing the subject is being

compared to

3) The similarities between the subject and the

analogue.

4) The target property – the property of the subject

one is trying to establish
 The components of Paley’s analogy

The subject – the universe

The analogue – the watch

The similarities – the complexities and organization

of watches and the universe

The target property – being designed (by an

intelligent being)
 Another illustration

1. Androids are like humans in that they can

move about, use language and solve
problems.

2. Humans can also feel pain.

______________________________

3. Therefore, probably androids can feel pains

too.
 Applied to the previous example

Subject – androids

Analogue – human beings

Similarities – ability to move around, use language,

solve problems (as well as others)

Target property – being able to feel pain

 Arguments from analogy are never
entirely conclusive

Analogical reasoning or argument is employed quite

frequently in everyday life. Such arguments can
sometimes be persuasive.

At the same time, we should remember that they are

not logically valid arguments – the premises of such
arguments never entail that the conclusion absolutely
must be true.

When arguments from analogy are used we do often

respond by saying: “But that’s only an analogy.”
 Evaluating analogical arguments

In evaluating an argument from analogy we must

look at the number of similarities, and the number
of differences, between the things that are being
compared.

We must also consider how relevant these similarities

and differences are.
 Evaluating analogical arguments

1. Number of similarities betwn subject and analogue

2. Relevance of the similarities
3. Number of dissimilarities betwn subject and analogue
4. Relevance of the dissimilarities
5. Number of instances compared – i.e. the more
instances of the analogue that have the target property,
the stronger the argument is
6. Diversity of cases – the greater the differences between
the analogues that have the relevant property, the
stronger the argument
 Examples

“The cover of this book is green and it’s a

boring book.”

“The cover of that book is green, so it’s

probably boring too.”

In the case of this argument from analogy, the

similarity is not relevant to the conclusion.
 Another example

1. X, Y and Z are baseball players and they chew

gum when playing baseball.

2. W is also a baseball player.

________________
3. So W also chews gum when playing baseball.

How strong is this argument from analogy?

 Cont’d

 Number of similarities? – being a baseball player

 Relevance? Is this similarity btwn X, Y and Z enough to
conclude that other baseball players chew gum?
 Number of dissimilarities? There are many.
 Relevance of dissimilarities? Some may be relevant.
 Number of instances compared? Three only – not very
many to support such analogy.
 Diversity of cases? No information about this – for
example, if the X, Y and Z are all pitchers, or all from
Venezuela, the analogy might not be very strong.
 Evaluation of Paley’s analogy

What are the similarities and differences between an

artefact, like a watch, and the universe.

Similarities – the similarity Paley starts from is the

complexity and structure exhibited by each. The watch
is composed of many parts. These are related,
connected, to each other so as to keep the whole
watch functioning in a certain way. Similarly, the
universe is composed of many parts – elementary
particles – related to each other so as to … what ?…
keep the universe functioning in some sense?
 What then are the dissimilarities?

Does this basic similarity support the conclusion that the

universe must also have been designed?

Against Paley, we may note that some things have

complex structure but were not designed by any
intelligent being; for example, snowflakes, human
societies, bee hives. So this would appear to weaken
Paley’s analogy. (We will come to Darwin later.)
 Cont’d

Furthermore, one might say that one of the biggest

difference between the watch and the universe is that
the former was designed while the latter was not.

Clearly, we cannot just ignore this apparent, or

possible, difference, for it is very relevant to deciding
how similar/different the watch and the universe are.

But the problem is that we cannot assess the extent of

the differences without knowing whether Paley’s
conclusion is true.
 A problem for Paley’s argument

 When we apply the criteria for evaluating an

argument from analogy to Paley’s argument, we find
that something odd, unexpected, happens.

 When we apply the usual criteria we find that Paley’s

argument is convincing only in so far as we are
already willing to assume that its conclusion is true.

 In other words, Paley’s argument would appear to beg

the question, to presuppose the truth of the very
conclusion it is supposed to be establishing.
 Paley’s argument begs the question

If the universe had no designer then it is very different

from the watch, and so the analogy between the two,
which is the basis of Paley’s argument, is not close.

By appealing to the analogy, therefore, as a reason to

think the universe was also designed, Paley is
assuming the very thing that he is trying to establish
with his argument – that the universe was designed.

Is this a fair criticism of Paley? It’s debatable.

Let us turn now to some of David
Hume’s other criticisms of Paley’s
argument from analogy
 1) The analogy is not very close

 The parts of the watch are organized or connected

together so that the watch performs a certain
function.

 But there is no indication that this is true of the

universe as a whole. What would be the function the
universe is supposed to perform?

 The parts of the universe may have a certain order,

but this is not the same thing as the universe being
directed toward some goal or function.
 Cont’d

This difference between the watch and the universe

is very relevant to whether there is a designer.

We may think that the fact that an object performs a

precise function is a clear give away that some
intelligent being made it for this purpose.

But given that the universe has no apparent function

or purpose, we have no reason to suspect that
anyone designed it so as to perform any function or
purpose.
 Cont’d

 In response to the argument on the previous slide,

one might say that, even if the universe as a whole
has no apparent function, there are many natural
things in the world that seem analogous to the watch.

 Living organisms are analogous to the watch in that

their parts seem designed to keep the organism alive,
and to keep it functioning in a certain way.

 The answer to this point, of course, is Darwin’s theory

of evolution, to which we will turn shortly.
 2) The designer need not be God

Even if we concede for the sake of argument that the

universe must have had a designer, it is not clear that
this designer must have the properties associated with
God as envisaged by religions.

Paley’s conclusion is that a vast and powerful being

must have created the universe. But must this being be
benevolent, merciful, all knowing, concerned about
human beings …? Must it even be intelligent?

Since none of these things follow, the argument from

design falls short of Paley’s intended conclusion.
3) Argument by analogy does not apply here

 Hume argues that an argument from analogy is only

applicable to types or kinds of things or properties, not
to individual things.

 We can claim that there is an analogy between Xs and

Ys, not between individuals X and Y. Paley’s analogy
therefore should be between watches and universes, or
universes of a certain kind.

 But Hume pointed out that the universe is a one time

thing – there are no such things existing as universes.
(Note: multiverses are just parts of the universe.)
 Let us turn now to the most decisive
objection against the argument from design
(regardless of whether we take it as an IBE
or an analogy) – the discovery of the theory
of evolution by Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

 English naturalist
 Originally aimed to be a doctor
 Embarked on 5-year research
voyage around the world
 From 1838-1859 developed the
theory of evolution
 Presented the theory in The
Origin of Species, 1859
 One of the greatest scientists in
history
 ET also discovered by Alfred
Russell Wallace
 Evolution Theory

All life on earth has descended from a common

ancestor through a long, gradual process of
evolution by natural selection by which new
species have arisen over and over again from
previously existing species.

See Darwin’s tree of life diagram, next slide.

D’s sketch of Tree of Life in The Origin
 Natural Selection

The most important idea in biology.

The process by which nature selects for traits

that have greater survival value, thereby
increasing their frequency in subsequent
generations.
 Relevance to Paley’s argument

 It was unfortunate for Paley that he lived a little before

Charles Darwin appeared on the scene.

 Had he known about Darwin’s theory of evolution,

Paley might have been less confident in his
assumption that the “designer” of living things must
have been some kind of intelligent being.

 For evolution theory explains how all of the living

things around us with their amazing adaptations,
could have been “designed” by a dumb, purpose-less,
non-intelligent, process of natural selection.
Some Good Books on evolution theory

 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

 Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, The Blind

Watchmaker, The Greatest Show on Earth: The
Evidence for Evolution.

 Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

 Ernst Mayr, What Evolution is

 The basic mechanism of evolution
by natural selection

1. geometric rate
of increase

+ lead to → 3. struggle for

survival 7. selection by
2. scarcity of + lead to → nature for
resources 4. variation in traits traits that have
5. differences in survival value
survival value of traits
6. transmission of traits
through heredity
See Richard Dawkins’ article, Reading 14,
“The Improbability of God”, page 51 in
our course pack, for a more detailed
account of the mechanism of evolution by
natural selection.
 No Purposes/Goals in Evolution

There is no goal-oriented process or

mechanism in nature that is striving to create
organisms that are well adapted to their
environments.
 Why does ET strike many people
as implausible?

Failure of imagination – failure to appreciate

the enormous time periods involved.

Failure to see all the false starts in the process

of evolution – all the mutations that
resulted in dysfunctional traits that didn’t
survive.
Richard Dawkins on natural selection

“We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of

times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to
have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they
come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the
story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a
whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough
to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred
one after the other in sequence. These small steps of
chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes -
mistakes really - in the genetic material…
 Cont’d

…They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure.

Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A
minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading
to increased survival and reproduction. By this process of
natural selection, those random changes that turn out to be
beneficial eventually spread through the species and
become the norm. The stage is now set for the next small
change in the evolutionary process.”
Summary of what Dawkins is saying

Genetic mutations occur randomly. Almost all produce

traits that are dysfunctional, and the organism does
not survive to reproduce.

Occasionally, it just happens by accident that a

mutation results in a trait that has survival value and
so is preserved (or is more likely to be preserved).
 Cont’d

The same process continues – many random mutations

occur, most are dysfunctional, but some just happen to
have survival value, and so are preserved. In this way,
little by little, slowly but surely, nature selects for traits
that have survival value.

This is what Dawkins means when he says that “chance

enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance.
Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small
enough to be a believable product of its predecessor,
occurred one after the other in sequence.”
 The Origin of Species – “one long argument”

1) Plausibility of natural selection in light of accepted belief.

2) No other promising theory, no mechanism other than NS, to

account for adaptations to the environment.

3) The example of artificial selection.

4) Explains groupings of organisms – why there are groups, sub-

groups, sub-sub-groups, etc.

5) Fossil record (of many intermediate species).

6) Facts about geographical distribution of species – e.g. why bats

are the only mammals on islands 300 miles from any continent.

7) No refutations of ET in the Data – very unlikely if ET is false.

Turn to the argument from
“Fine-Tuning”
 The argument

 The possibility of life in the universe depends on

certain physical constant having precisely the values
they have. Change these values ever so slightly and
life could not exist.
 Yet physics has no explanation for their having these
values. They cannot be derived from any laws but
must be determined by observation.
 From the standpoint of science, the existence of life in
the universe is thus a stunningly improbable accident.
 The only way to avoid this consequence is to suppose
that the universe was designed to make life possible.
 Examples of “cosmic coincidences”

 Near but not complete uniformity of cosmic

microwave background radiation
 Proton-to-electron mass ratio
 Strength of gravity relative to electromagnetic force
 Value of the cosmological constant – close to but not
exactly zero
 Strength of strong force that binds the atomic nucleus
 Energy density of contents of universe and the 'dark
energy' of its expansion are, just now, of roughly the
same order of magnitude
 Mass of the Higgs-Boson particle
 Objections to fine-tuning argument

1. Life may be very improbable

 How likely is it, given the way the universe actually is,
that life would emerge?
No one knows. For all we know, life may be very
improbable and we’re is just a freak accident.
But then there is no basis for saying the world has been
fine-tuned to make life probable or possible.
To make life probable, perhaps a much greater degree

of fine-tuning would be needed.

But wouldn’t this be evidence against God’s existence?
2. Universe not fine-tuned to create humans

There is nothing to suggest that the universe was

designed with humanity in mind:

“…our species has existed for only 0.0015% of the age of

the universe. From this perspective it is difficult to imagine
how one could place humanity at the center of any credible
universal narrative. Indeed, if the universe was created with
biological life in mind, jellyfish would seem to be a more
plausible object of divine attention than our own belated
species ” (From Reading skeptic.com at:
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/non-fine-tuned-universe/
 3. No way to measure fine-tuning

“In order to estimate the probability that a given

universe could sustain life, one needs at least two
pieces of information: first, the number of possible
universe configurations; and second, the number of
such configurations that are conducive to the
development of life, however one may define it.3 Since
neither of these quantities is known, no discussion of
fine-tuning can begin …”
(Reading
Passage on the preceding slide is from the following
sours:

Jeremie Harris and Edouard Harris, “The Non-Fine

Tuned Universe: the astronomical failure of the
cosmological argument for theism”

From the website skeptic.com, at:

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/non-fine-
tuned-universe/
 4. Second Law of Thermodynamics

 According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics,

which is completely confirmed, the amount of
disorder in the universe increases as the universe
ages.

 The end result of this process will be a universe in

which life is completely impossible.

 This doesn’t look like a universe fine-tuned to

sustain life.
5. Alternative explanations for the values
of these constants

a) Traditional physics will eventually explain the

“coincidences”, as it has explained so many things in
the past, by developing a deeper account of the
causal laws governing the universe.

b) The coincidences are not actually that striking.

c) The anthropic principle – this is, roughly, the idea that

the coincidences are merely the result of a selection
effect: had the constants not had these values, life
would not have been possible, and so no one would
have been here to observe the universe.
 Examples of selection effects

 A celebrity wonders why, wherever she happens to go,

there are so many photo-journalists waiting to take
pictures of her. Is it just an unfortunate coincidence that
she goes wherever the journalists are?

 People on a picnic wonder why, whenever they go on a

picnic, they choose a place that has so many ants.

 Why is it that so many living things we see around us

are so well adapted to their environments? Is this just a
coincidence?
As everyone can see, the answers to the questions on
the previous slide are:

 B/c the journalists go wherever the celebrity goes

 B/c the ants go wherever you decide to have the

picnic

 B/c organisms that were not well adapted became

extinct
 Ancient atomism

 This is a theory developed in ancient Greece by a

thinker named Leucippus and his pupil Democratus,
according to to which the world is composed of tiny
invisible particles referred to as atoms.
 On their theory, the universe is infinite both in space
and time.
 One might expect, then, that particles in some places
would become arranged as they are in the actual
world just by accident
 On this theory therefore there is no reason to expect
that the order we observe was designed.
 From Reading by Gideon Rosen

“Some of the ancient atomists seem to have held that the

universe is infinite in both time and space, and that over time
every possible arrangement of particles is realized. If this
were the case then it would not be surprising that at some
point in the history of the world there should be
arrangements like the arrangements we find -- arrangements
which present an illusory appearance of design.”
6) The multiverse perhaps the main alternative

 The atomistic theory is a precursor of the present day

hypothesis in physics that, in addition to the world we
observe around us, there are a large (perhaps infinite)
number of other “universes” in which there are very
different laws of nature, and in which the constants of
nature have very different values.

 These “multiverses” are not posited in an ad hoc way

just to account for the cosmic coincidences. Some well
developed theories, such as string theory, seem to
predict that there will be such multiverses.
 The “coincidences” can now be explained

 Universes in which the constants have very different

values than in our universe, would make life
impossible, and so no living things would ever come
into existence to observe them.

 So any universe in which there exist beings who

observe the universe around them, will have to be
ones in which the constants have pretty much the
values they have in our (part) universe.
 Conclusion

 If the multiverse theory is correct, there is no need to

suppose that the cosmic coincidences must be
explained by reference to any intelligent being who
designed our universe.

 So “fine-tuning” version of the argument from

design also fails to prove the existence of God.

 Of course, it is still possible that God exists.

Other problems for the argument
from cosmic coincidences