William Paley's Argument from Design (Darwin, Earth, Deists, creation)

[Rex]

P1 Machines are a result of ID, the more complicate the machine the more intelligent the designer
P2 Many parts of the universe resemble a machine, only much more complicated design
C Probably the universe or many of it's natural parts was the result of super intelligent design, namely god


Objections:

a. designers need not be god
b. could be many designers
c. analogy between man made and universe is weak, we already know how watches are made but not the universes
d. paerhaps the universe is poorly designed
e. Darwin's objection. You can get order without design

[Jaiket]

Something I've been curious about for a little while,
- why are human creations always created using 'intelligence' rather than 'human intelligence'?

Humans are the only beings we can say have created complex contraptions, so following the ID line should we not propose humans created the universe, and of-course life?

[robtex]

I see where W. Paley is going with this but he phrased it incompletely. He might have said instead

p1 same as listed but replace machine with composition
p2 same as listed but replace machine with composition
p3 every complexed composition is comprised of smaller componets of less complicated compositions.
p4 componets of an inorganic device mirror those of an organic one
p5 complexed designs are inprobable to form out of random design
p7 things that have a complexed design need an entitiy to engineer that design
p8 the universe is an extremely complexed design
c1 same as listed

some of the premise-conclusion stuff you study in school is poorly put together. The wording as in, in post # 1 disproves itself on the notion that the universe is not a mechanical device. It is like saying
a +b = c
d + e= f
d and a are simliar as is b and e
therefore c in all probablity equals f

No matter how one contrives the question though it is still a leap of faith to say that the universe is the product of a designer. All the objections listed are strong. The designer, at this juncture, seems to be the universe itself. We have certainly looked at the universe with ships non-maned probes, telescopes and the like and nobody has seen a busy body out there working up a sweat. That is an important note because the universe and even on earth things are designed everday and somewhere around the world some scientiest is witnessing the organic or inorganic material design itself without any divine intervention. If a God is required to make things in the universe than he would be required to make ALL things. As it turns out man has observed things created over and over in the absense of God. If said things can be created itself without a God that is evidence that a designer it not needed to create all designs and if a god is not needed for all designs why would one thing a god is needed for any designs?

[scitsofreaky]

If a God is required to make things in the universe than he would be required to make ALL things. As it turns out man has observed things created over and over in the absense of God.

If we cannot "see" God, then we can't be sure that God is absent.
Also, it is possible that if God created the universe, he created the principles that allow things to create themselves.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by scitsofreaky

If we cannot "see" God, then we can't be sure that God is absent.
Also, it is possible that if God created the universe, he created the principles that allow things to create themselves.

both are wrong:

It would be more correct to say actually that if we can't see God than we can't be sure he is present.

By your logic since we can't see a number of things from wood spirtes to a huge lake in my backyard I can't be sure it is absent. Not on any level is non dection a valid arguement for the existance of something like you have just contended. Also there is no "sure" only probablities due to our limited perceptions.

But sight is only 1 of 5 senses. What we do know is that either a God is needed to make the universe and its contents or he/she/it is not. Everytime a genetists sees a cell reproduce itself without evidence of God's presense, or botonists sees a tree grow from a seed in a controlled enviroment without the detectable presense of God there is an arguement that God is not needed to create life within the universe. If God's presensce is not needed to create all life than how would you contend he is needed to create any of it?

On your second statement a God that creates princples and walks away (which is my understanding what deists contend) sounds pretty apathic and such an apathetic intrepretation of God does not present one prompted to do something non apathetic like creating a universe. To say that God probably created the universe and probably does not have a vested interest in it in the same sentence does not make much sense.

[Ceridwen018]

P1 Machines are a result of ID, the more complicate the machine the more intelligent the designer
P2 Many parts of the universe resemble a machine, only much more complicated design

Think about this, you guys:

In modern society, which plan would we value more, and which plan would we consider to be more intelligent? One that takes a long time, is very complicated, and extremely inefficient? Or one that is quite simple, with few steps, and is very efficiet?

We would all choose the latter, correct?

Of course we would. The point here, is that the "argument from complexity" is actually an argument against intelligent design. Because the universe, our bodies, etc., are so complex and inefficient, it leans more towards a "trial and error" type process than true intelligent design.

[scitsofreaky]

On your second statement a God that creates princples and walks away (which is my understanding what deists contend) sounds pretty apathic and such an apathetic intrepretation of God does not present one prompted to do something non apathetic like creating a universe. To say that God probably created the universe and probably does not have a vested interest in it in the same sentence does not make much sense.

That would by an anthropomorphic God, which I don't believe in. I don't assume that God has any emotions or feelings, such as apathy or empathy. I believe that God is the "first cause," that is the force that created the universe as we know it. Force does not have emotion, it just is.

If God's presensce is not needed to create all life than how would you contend he is needed to create any of it?

First off, I used an arguement I don't entirely agree with, it was one that I have seen before, and I thought it wouldn't hurt to bring it up.
If God created the principles that govern the universe, then God is indirectly creating everything that appears to be creating itself. The principles are always necessary for the creation of life, and God created/caused those principles to exist.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Think about this, you guys:

In modern society, which plan would we value more, and which plan would we consider to be more intelligent? One that takes a long time, is very complicated, and extremely inefficient? Or one that is quite simple, with few steps, and is very efficiet?

We would all choose the latter, correct?

Of course we would. The point here, is that the "argument from complexity" is actually an argument against intelligent design. Because the universe, our bodies, etc., are so complex and inefficient, it leans more towards a "trial and error" type process than true intelligent design.

Of course you are right Ceridwen - especially about my body's inneficiency !- the thing is (it was mentioned in another thread today, but can't remember which) time is only subjective anyway. The ID theory is so full of holes that it has to rely on a - forgive me Orthodox members - Don't question it command, from the church. Why should'nt we be inquisitive ? we are about everything else in life.

[painted wolf]

my favorite ID attempt at scientific legitimacy is the "the designer doesn't need to be god" argument. Ok so we have a 'mysterious' not to be named, supernatural designer, but its not "GOD"? A great something created everything with care and precision but its not 'god'?
Yeah, right ID isn't pushing a religious agenda.

as for complexity from randomness, just take a good look at Chaos theory and Fractals. Complex patterns from randomness. Order from chaos.

Injecting the supernatual into science is a step back to the dark ages. IMHO

wa:do

[michel]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

my favorite ID attempt at scientific legitimacy is the "the designer doesn't need to be god" argument. Ok so we have a 'mysterious' not to be named, supernatural designer, but its not "GOD"? A great something created everything with care and precision but its not 'god'?
Yeah, right ID isn't pushing a religious agenda.

as for complexity from randomness, just take a good look at Chaos theory and Fractals. Complex patterns from randomness. Order from chaos.

Injecting the supernatual into science is a step back to the dark ages. IMHO

wa:do

Full marks for just sheer common sense. I feel a fruball coming on.....