Objections against Design Argument

Question 1

What is Hume’s argument

Answer 1

Grant: intricate purposeful structures and there is an underlying intelligence

you do not have an argument for god

1) you do not get unicity (one god, could be plural)
2) you do not get infinity/eternality of intelligence (intelligence could be created by other intelligence; baby god theory)
3) you do not get perfection
4) you do not get goodness

Question 2

Epicurean (naturalistic) alternative (not objection) (epicureans)

Answer 2

• posit space
• posit atoms
• post natural motion on part of atoms
• posit atoms have eternal properties (attract/repel)

posit= recognize the possibility of:

With this, we have everything we need to create intricate purposeful structures

created by atoms floating around, (creation by chance), some collisions have greater survival ability than others

Question 3

Hume alternative to Epicurean (naturalistic) alternaive

Answer 3

number of atoms is finite

finite legos, sticking and breaking over an infinite amount of time

every possibility would have been tried an infinite amount of times

Question 4

what is the foundational principle that serves as the naturalistic objection towards the design argument (and theism as a whole)

Answer 4

problem of evil

Question 5

what is the problem of evil

Answer 5

1) the world has either theistic or naturalistic explanation
2) due to the problem of evil, the theistic explanation must be deemed incoherent
3) hence by default, the world is to be explained naturalistically

Question 6

What is Bertrand Russels claim regarding the design argument?

Answer 6

Darwin’s evolution theory proves that the design argument is not required

this world, with all its imperfections, is the best that a being with omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence could do (ku kulx klan exists etc.)

Question 7

What is Darwin’s claim that the eye was fully created through natural selection (epicurean)

Answer 7

flip flopping: first he proposes a naturalistic assumption: how could natural processes lead to something as optimal as the eye.

then he proposes theistic assumption: why could God not create by evolutionary processes. ‘Who are you to say’

Question 8

What does it mean to view evolution naturalistically

Answer 8

all causes that led to species evolution/development were natural

Question 9

what does it mean to view evolution theistically

Answer 9

in addition to natural causes, there were also not natural causes (theistic causes)

Question 10

explain the 3 step process of natural selection

Answer 10

mutation
variation
selection

Question 11

What is implied by random mutation (what does random mean)

Answer 11

cannot mean by chance - as science shows mutagens cause mutations. If mutations have a cause, they cannot happen by chance

means that there is no correlation between the needs of survival and the production of the variation

Question 12

what is plantinga argument regarding randomness of mutation

Answer 12

there is no mechanism within an organism that detects whether an adaptation is required (hence random) but this does not rule out theistic intervention/intelligence that causes mutation for some purpose

Question 13

implication of evolutionary theory for design argument

(1) the eye has purpose
(2) if x has a purpose, then x has a purposor
(3) if y is a purposor, then y is a mind

Answer 13

1) if evolutionary theory is true, then the eye is a result of natural processes (presupposes naturalistic interpretation of evolutionary theory)
2) if so, then the eye doesn’t imply a mind

Question 14

why accept a naturalistic interpretation of evolutionary theory (Dennett)

Answer 14

1) it follows from the concept of random (genetic mutation is random)

Dennett:
2a) if evolution were not naturalistic, it would be guided by mind
2b) if evolution were guided by mind, it would not include things that were suboptimal (blind spot)
2c) but the eye is suboptimal (blind spot)
2d) therefore evolutionary theory must be naturalistic and not theistic