On the appearance of Design

[Angrboda]

The design argument, that if something "appears designed" then it likely was designed, is used to argue for the likely existence of God in multiple contexts. It's used to argue that the fine tuning of the universe strongly implies a creator, and that the biollogical complexity of life requires a creator. However, both arguments rest on an intuition which I believe is flawed. Properly understood, the intuition doesn't actually lead to the conclusion of a creator, regardless of whether there is complexity or fine-tuning at all. It is flawed on its face.

The intuition proceeds as follows.

When we look at objects in the world that appear designed, we always find that the object is the result of human design. Thus if we find a like appearance of design in nature, it is reasonable to conclude that it too was designed.

A preliminary note about this is that this is an argument which rests on an inductive inference. Namely, all X you've seen are Y, therefore all X are Y. Strictly speaking this is not deductively true, as we may not have seen all X's, and we don't actually know how many of all the X's in existence are actually Y. So the conclusion would have to be restated as, all X we've seen are Y, therefore all X are probably Y. But note that this induction also carries the seeds of its own undoing for the advocate of biological intelligent design. According to him, if it's not the product of human creation, it's the product of design by a creator god. The reason all X we've seen are Y, of human design, is because we've focused on an area rich in X that are Y. If we leave the confines of human civilization and proceed into the forest, all the X's we see, trees and birds and frogs, are actually Z, the product of God's design. Thus we originally found that all X are Y because we looked in a place where the majority of X are indeed Y by their distribution, rather than because all X are Y. This is known as the fallacy of base rate neglect, that is coming to an improper conclusion by not taking into account the base rate or frequency that the phenomena we're looking for occurs in the sample. In the forest, all appearances of design are actually the hallmark of a different creator process. If you assume all of nature also contains the hallmarks of a special creator, God, you've both begged the question and destroyed the soundness of your inductive inference. The only way for the inference to hold is if non-human complexity is not the product of design, and that's exactly what the design argument is trying to avoid.

The more substantial problem comes in what the conclusion actually says. There is an important difference between the design process of human beings and the design process of a creator god. Humans may be the end result of a natural process, evolution, whereas a creator god in the sense implied by the argument is not the end result of a natural process. The analogy as stated encourages you to equate the result of a process which may be natural or not, with a process that is definitely not natural. If we plug in the new information, that human design may be a natural process, it changes our conclusion. So if we restate the analogy including this possibility, we have:

When we look at objects in the world that appear designed, we always find that the object is ( the result of a natural process or the consequence of special creation ). Thus if we find a like appearance of design in nature, it is reasonable to conclude that it too was ( the result of a natural process or the consequence of special creation ).

So if we conclude that human design may be the result of a natural process, evolution, all the intuition gets you to is the conclusion that the design in the universe may have been ( the result of a natural process or the consequence of special creation ). In otherwords, the conclusion is only that it either was natural or it wasn't natural. And that doesn't lead us to special creation by a non-natural god without either a) additional steps, or b) assuming the conclusion, that human design is non-natural, and begging the question.

[FreeTony]

Using their logic their God must have been designed. Cue special pleading.

As I think you point out, if everything in the universe is designed, then we have no examples of non-designed things to use as a measure.

[MindForgedManacle]

Well put.

[tor]

There is no appearance of design. I think it's more of a question of creator versus coming from nothing. Look at dem trees they couldn't come from nothing therefore must be designed.

Of course designed must be eternal becuz infinite regress.

[Minimalist]

Cue special pleading.

'God' is different.

[xr34p3rx]

i answered such argument logically on one of my threads months ago

2- When i see outside, i know it had a creator.
-Really?... huh... and uh.. what does a universe with NO creator look like? In order to know something had a creator you must see the odds. I drop a bucket of paint, my intention was NOT to create it that way, it naturally made a splash (due to physics) and it so happened that way. if i get a paintbrush and make a painting, then i know it had a creator because what was drawn is not bound to happen naturally. So at this point, not knowing what a universe with no creator looks like, there is only assumption and no assertion.

this is the full thread, might come in handy
atheistforums.org/thread-23249.html

[max-greece]

So in essence the appearance of design is either a result of design or a natural process that appears to look designed whilst not being.

[xr34p3rx]

So in essence the appearance of design is either a result of design or a natural process that appears to look designed whilst not being.

its not designed, its just formed, a tree doesnt choose to "design" itself with branches, it just is that way.