Design Counterarguments

Hello everybody. I am proud to announce that this is my first post in this board.I am embroiled in a running debate with this champion of ID, who tries to fill in the 'apparent' missing holes of evolution/big bang cosmology with a 'god of the gaps' shtick.Some of the arguments aren't exactly for evolution, but focuses on the weakness of the design argument.I have rounded up a few counter-arguments to the design argument, feel free to comment or dismiss,Restriction on the conclusion
If the gods are the cause of order in the universe, then they possess that degree of power, intelligence and benevolence, which appears in their known effect, which is the universe, and nothing more.

• Premise 1- When we infer a particular cause from an effect, we proportion the one to the other and must never ascribe to the cause any qualities other than what is sufficient to produce the event.
• premise 2- if the cause is known only through the effect, we ought never add any qualities other than what is essential to produce the effect. Nor is it prudent to infer other effects from the cause beyond what is already known to us.

If the design argument is valid, then the existence of natural evil in the world is evidence against gods of moral characters the theistic relgions attribute to him/them/it.If valid, the design argument could establish a number of alternative conclusions that are incompatible with monotheism:

• The product of a committee of designers.
• A discarded experiment or a creation of a third rate entity.
• A creation that has been left to run on its own devices ever since.

Unique Cause ObjectionIt is only when we observe two particular objects to be constantly conjoined that we can infer one from the other. If an lone, singular effect is present and cannot be understood under any other reference, there can be no way to form a conjecture or inference at all that concerns the cause.Weaknesses in the analogyThe analogy between the objects we know to have been fashioned by design and any natural object is slight, too remote to suggest a similar cause.The analogy argument in syllogism form:

• A 's are similar to a's
• A's are caused by B's
• Therefore, a's are caused by b's.

A few objections are: there is no reference to the main element, or how good is the analogy or how close the similarities are between the A's and a's.Rewording the syllogism in another way:

• A is similar to a in features X1, X2, ... Xn.
• A's are caused by B's
• Therefore, a is caused by b.

The crucial weak spot is how high is the variable 'n' (how many similarities are there between a and A, or God and man) E.g., both a lion and man can move. Man enjoys music. Therefore lions, like men, enjoys music too.The essential balance of the analogy in the design argument between anthropomorphism and incomprehensible remoteness is difficult to maintain.Another counter is that the order, arrangement, or the adjustment of final causes is not of itself any proof of design, but only so far as it has been experienced to proceed from that principle.Possible sources of OrderIf an intelligent agent is required to account for the 'order' in nature, then the intelligent agent will in turn need to be explained. But if we stop there and not explain anything, and go no farther, why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? How we can satisfy ourselves without going on in ad infinitum? After all, what satisfaction is there in infinite progress?Is there a system, an order or an economy of things that matter can preserve that perpetual agitation (which seems to be essential) and yet maintain a constancy in the forms which it produces?The most prudent defense is that our lifetime and knowledge and empirical method is too short to fathom such an immense abyss.Thank you, and i want to hear replies being posted!
~Z~

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zarathustra:
[B]Hello everybody. I am proud to announce that this is my first post in this board. [/QUOTE]Funny, for someone from Baghdad, your english is impeccable.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zarathustra:
[b]Hello everybody. I am proud to announce that this is my first post in this board.
Restriction on the conclusion
If the gods are the cause of order in the universe, then they possess that degree of power, intelligence and benevolence, which appears in their known effect, which is the universe, and nothing more.

• Premise 1- When we infer a particular cause from an effect, we proportion the one to the other and must never ascribe to the cause any qualities other than what is sufficient to produce the event.
• premise 2- if the cause is known only through the effect, we ought never add any qualities other than what is essential to produce the effect. Nor is it prudent to infer other effects from the cause beyond what is already known to us.

If the design argument is valid, then the existence of natural evil in the world is evidence against gods of moral characters the theistic relgions attribute to him/them/it.[/QUOTE]There is no such thing as natural evil. Why don't you try to define it for us since you have offered it. Please feel free to include a justification for the recognition of evil.

quote:

---

If valid, the design argument could establish a number of alternative conclusions that are incompatible with monotheism:

---

It is not valid. Justify your intial argument for natural evil and then we will procede.

My personal favorite is an information argument against design. As you bring up in the "Restriction of the Conclusion", it can be shown in information theory that you cannot infer a context of interpretation without prior (assumed) knowledge of the appropriatness of that context. For example, in cryptography, the message is assumed to be from a human source, then interpretted within that context to outcome (natural language). SETI is based upon the assumption that an alien intelligence, somewhat like ours, would think like us and try to broadcast certain patterns (which carries less information than static, SETI actually looks for a lack of information to imply intelligence).I prefer this one because it castrates one of the most mistaken arguments for design, and shows that they actually have to assume a designer before they can prove it (begging the question), whereas biochemical interactions don't have to be assumed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nialscorva:
[b]My personal favorite is an information argument against design. As you bring up in the "Restriction of the Conclusion", it can be shown in information theory that you cannot infer a context of interpretation without prior (assumed) knowledge of the appropriatness of that context. For example, in cryptography, the message is assumed to be from a human source, then interpretted within that context to outcome (natural language). SETI is based upon the assumption that an alien intelligence, somewhat like ours, would think like us and try to broadcast certain patterns (which carries less information than static, SETI actually looks for a lack of information to imply intelligence).[/QUOTE]

​

When an anthropologist distinguishes the marks and shape of a rock to be intelligently designed (an arrowhead) verses naturally caused, how does he do that?

​

[QUOTE] I prefer this one because it castrates one of the most mistaken arguments for design, and shows that they actually have to assume a designer before they can prove it (begging the question), whereas biochemical interactions don't have to be assumed.[/b]

---

There is no castration as the evidence for a creator is ubiquitous in other fields, namely cosmology. The kalam argument is sufficient to warrent belief in a creator. It may not be sufficient to prove such, however, science does not move on such proofs but on reasonable probabilities as it moves towards proof. The design inference is as reasonable and more so than the inference of design to an arrowhead.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thrombosis:
[b] [QUOTE]Funny, for someone from Baghdad, your english is impeccable.[/b][/QUOTE]Funny, for someone from the USA, your sense of humor is lacking. ~Zarathustra~

quote:

---

When an anthropologist distinguishes the marks and shape of a rock to be intelligently designed (an arrowhead) verses naturally caused, how does he do that?

---

It ain't easy, and he makes a probabilistic guess as to whether it originated with humans. Sites such as Calico are still being debated, there is no clear decision procedure, and not for lack of effort. Most of it is based upon consistency with evidence with previously known patterns of tool development and usage, living patterns, and remains. In other words, we know *something* about who designed the tools before hand, and we interpret the information in that context. ID doesn't have that (or they can claim in YHWH, Odin, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and it's all equally consistent). Of course, then they are relying on a hypothetical deity, not an evidentiary claim.

quote:

---

There is no castration as the evidence for a creator is ubiquitous in other fields, namely cosmology. The kalam argument is sufficient to warrent belief in a creator. It may not be sufficient to prove such, however, science does not move on such proofs but on reasonable probabilities as it moves towards proof. The design inference is as reasonable and more so than the inference of design to an arrowhead.

---

Hmmm... the assumption that the rock that looks like an arrowhead that was made by human cultures all over the word is pragmatically equivalent to the assumption that the universe was designed by a nebulous, ill-defined, non-evidentiary transcendental entity? At least in the first case, we have evidence that all of the entities exist. The khalam is not proof of god's existence, at the *very* most, it's proof of a first cause. Event that is doubtful, as causality is not as straight-forward as the khalam requires. There's plenty of evidence from QM that strict causality is not a reality.

Thrombo: There is no such thing as natural evil. Why don't you try to define it for us since you have offered it. Please feel free to include a justification for the recognition of evil.Quite simple, Thromby- just differentiate moral evil from the category of evil and you've got "natural" evil left over. I define moral evil as the evil that results from behavior or failure of action. W/o the act or omission of an act by a human agent moral evil would not happen. i.e. murder is an evil brought about by a human agent. therefore it is a moral evil. Even though a murder victom's death was caused directly by a blade severing his jugular, the ultimate agent of the victim's demise was the murderer responsible for introducing schlick razor blades a bit too roughly.Natural evil arises through no fault of man. Man has no control over natural evil, and has no ability to prevent it from taking place. Usually an excruciating painful death or suffering results from a incurable and terminal disease- this is suffering a natural evil, as well as natural disasters of earthly phenomena- earthquakes, volcanoes, hrricanes, floods, tornandoes, future ice ages.Which brings up an antinomy (taking a page out of Kant) This is an issue of theodicy- the thesis is the world is intrinstically good, and comforts our suffering. Were it otherwise, pessimism is the default position and renders suffering useless and wasteful, since they are beared and sustained for nothing. Suffering/evil must be justified for something, otherwise life is existentially absurd! If there is a God, hopefully an omniscient one, then this by definition guarantees all events that take place must contain purpose, despite the limits of our ability to understand. The antithesis is that the world is NO GOOD. Were it so, this ridicules the position of evil especially the enormous (holocaust, black plague) or constant on-going ones. Evil would be "instrumental good" and be rendered meaningless themselves,a nd we end up in the superficial mocking position of the onlooker who consoles the suffering that "what happes is for the greater good." If there is a god, he could accomplish his 'mysterious ways" sans the horrific events that occured in history.Thrombo: It is not valid. Justify your intial argument for natural evil and then we will procede. So the design argument is not valid?~Zarathustra~

Fancy meeting you here, Nials! how goes the Quinian assignment?~Zarathustra~

my first double post in a year's worth of UBB posting.

​

[This message has been edited by Zarathustra (edited 08-10-2001).]

Arrowheads are easy to distinguish and are almost never mistaken for geofacts. The trick, as I can attest from actually attempting to do it, is to distinguish stream-shaped rocks from human shaped. This is not done by some kind of criteria-based design/not-design algorithm, but by a simple test that looks at the angle of the alleged cutting face, and assigns everything under that angle to the geofact pile, and everything above, to the artifact. Note again that this is based on and confirmed by empirical experience with actual designed artifacts.The only way to infer design is to go from some known artifact to an unknown one of the same category. Unfortunately, technologies, the usual comparison, will not work, because they are poor analogues for living systems. We have no analogues, and thus, are not in a position to infer design.Further, living systems are apparently ad hoc -- which fits evolution -- and not designed well at all. The human ear has three bones that are jawbones in older animals. Why modify like that? Why not start anew? Natural designs are often inferior to what any rational designer would do when starting from scratch with unlimited materials and power.Another reason we need not infer Design is because we already have a model, natural selection working on various changes in the genetic material, that explains the variety of life on earth. There is no need to turn to a Designer, when that powerful model is available.Lew Alton

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zarathustra:
Thrombo:
There is no such thing as natural evil. Why don't you try to define it for us since you have offered it. Please feel free to include a justification for the recognition of evil.
Zarat:
Quite simple, Thromby- just differentiate moral evil from the category of evil and you've got "natural" evil left over.

---

Huh? Try again. Just differentiate moral evil from the category of evil? Why don't you start with defining what evil is. How do you distinguish what is evil? Where did you get this concept? Sounds pretty theistic to me. Are you a theist?

quote:

---

Zarat:
I define moral evil as the evil that results from behavior or failure of action.

---

You keep using the word evil in your definitions. You need to explain where you got this word. What in the world does it mean?W

quote:

---

Natural evil arises through no fault of man. Man has no control over natural evil, and has no ability to prevent it from taking place. Usually an excruciating painful death or suffering results from a incurable and terminal disease- this is suffering a natural evil, as well as natural disasters of earthly phenomena- earthquakes, volcanoes, hrricanes, floods, tornandoes, future ice ages.

---

You are not being clear. While I can see why many of the things you listed would be undesirable for personal comfort, I have not seen you make any case as to why they are evil, let alone defining what evil is.Thrombosiladius

[QUOTE]There's plenty of evidence from QM that strict causality is not a reality.[/B][/QUOTE]You overstate your case. There is plenty of evidence from QM that physical laws may not work and apply the same way as they do in non-quantom fashion, however you are welcome to provide the type of evidence that proves that causality is not a reality.Thrombolionesium Baracudum

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lew Alton:
Arrowheads are easy to distinguish and are almost never mistaken for geofacts. The trick, as I can attest from actually attempting to do it, is to distinguish stream-shaped rocks from human shaped.

---

Complete arrowheads, yes. Partials are increasingly difficult to ID. In addition, you have scrapers, spear heads, and various other lithic artifacts that aren't nearly as blatant as a piece of highly chipped quartz. It's a nitpick, but the devil's in the details.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zarathustra:
Funny, for someone from the USA, your sense of humor is lacking.

​

~Zarathustra~

---

I just noticed the joke: Baghdad, Persia. Should have seen it. You get a token laugh. Ha, ha, hee, hee, hee. Ahem.