Explain and illustrate the inference from purpose to design.
The way living creatures function is highly complex as it requires huge co-ordination of lots of tiny bits, with each bit doing its job, because of this it is argued that the complexity of living creatures must have required planning. Furthermore, this planning had a purpose - to make a living creature, to make organs that enables the creature to hear, see etc. It is argued that acting on a plan that is guided by purpose is 'design'. Thus, if living creatures are designed, then by definition there must be a designer (which is an argument for the existence of God).
Explain how evolution by natural selection undermines the argument for design.
The argument for design can be explained more simply by the Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that millions of alterations take place in a creature and that the traits of a creature which help it survive are more likely to be carried on in its species through reproduction. This is because reproduction is easier and thus more likely for the creatures are best suited to their environment (i.e. the ones with advantageous traits), thus their traits will be carried on genetically. The creatures with the least advantageous traits are likely to die out faster because they are not as well-suited to their environments, thus they are less likely to survive. Therefore, rather than design, creatures are a product of coincidence that happens over a great deal of time.
This undermines the argument for design because it explains more simply why living creatures are so complex, rather than inferring existence of something we can't be certain exists. Also, it is scientific and testable, therefore, it is a better explanation.
Outline and illustrate the fine tuning argument for design.
Cosmologists explain that the conditions necessary for life to come into existence are extremely improbable, and thus cannot be explained through mere coincidence. If anything about the Big Bang were different, even slightly, then the universe itself would be entirely different - stars wouldn't exists, nor planets, nor us humans. The fact that the universe is so adjusted, so 'finely tuned', seems like a tremendous coincidence. A further explanation of this argument is that the universe was designed in a particular way that would allow life to evolve the way it has. This is an argument against Darwinism, as it claims that the way the universe and life has formed can't have just been a coincidence, due to the immense scientific intricacy that has allowed it to form the way it has.
Explain the argument from analogy.
The argument from analogy states that nature resembles human inventions (for example, a watch) in the way it displays a purpose, for example, the hearts purpose to pump blood, or the eyes purpose to see. Therefore, it is argued that nature must have a cause similar to human invention, in other words, there must have been a mind that intended to create such a design (as humans do with their inventions).
However, Hume argues against the analogy - firstly, this argument usually refers to the particular human invention of a watch, this is flawed as it could easily be argued that a watch is incomparable to living creatures. For example, watches cannot feel sensory feelings such as pain, therefore the argument that the nature is similar to human invention is invalid, meaning we can't infer a similar cause for its existence. Furthermore, the universe itself is nothing like a watch, it is obviously far more complex, therefore again, we can't infer a similar cause for its existence. Also, Hume argues that overall this is a weak argument - our knowledge of the world is extremely unreliable, therefore it would be implausible to draw such conclusions about the world. It could be asserted that this argument is far too simplistic to explain something so vast and, for the most part, incomprehensible, therefore weakening this argument overall.
Assess the argument from analogy for the existence of God.
The argument from analogy argues for the existence of God, as it claims that nature resembles human inventions in the way is displays a purpose, therefore, like human inventions, there must have been a creator of nature.
According to Hume, this argument has a few major flaws - firstly, even it there were evidence to suggest that there is a designer of the universe, it is a huge leap to argue that this designer is God; more explanation and proof is needed, therefore it is an incomplete argument.
Furthermore, some of the attributes of God contradict the argument. Firstly, God is said to be the 'creator', however, we can argue that, in the case of humans, the designer isn't always the creator e.g. a person could design a house, but they may not build it themselves. Therefore, we can't accurately compare the creation of human inventions to the creation of the universe, flawing the argument from analogy.
Also, it could be argued that the scale of the design of something reflects the power of the designer - if this were the case, then both a watch and the universe would be infinite, which isn't the case. However, God is said to be infinite, therefore not reflecting the scale of the design, thus weakening the similarity.
It could also be argued that the quality of the design reflects the abilities of the designer - however, if the purpose of the universe was life, then this is poorly designed because natural disasters (e.g. volcanoes, tsunamis) wipe out life. Therefore, we could infer that the designer of the universe wasn't fully skilled, therefore it cannot have been God as is said not to make mistakes.
Therefore, overall, comparing the creation of human inventions to the creation of the universe as an argument for God is an inaccurate argument, as the similarities between the designer of human inventions and God being a designer are weak.
No comments:
Post a Comment