The classic argument for design is the analogy between a watch and a living thing. But does it matter if we find a watch, a spaceship, or a bone on the heath? I don't think it does. I will explain, but first some background.
After my letter to the editor was published, Tom Eckstein contacted me by email, as he often does and we had an exchange of emails. Eventually, he suggested I read some intelligent design books he found convincing, as he often does. This time I decided to take him up on it, not because I think I will change his mind, but more for the sport. I thought it might be fun to dissect it in great detail on this blog.
The book I eventually settled on is "Darwin's Proof" by Cornelius G. Hunter. I have read the first few chapters and will give a detailed review of them soon, but before I do I wanted to make a more general observation. He starts chapter 2 with an analogy that would be familiar to anyone who has ever waded into this subject: he compares living things with a complex machine. In this case, he brings up the scenario of people stumbling on a complex alien spaceship, and the absurdity of someone suggesting that it wasn't designed but arose by natural means. This is of course just a variation of William Paley finding a watch on the heath 200 years ago.
My first thought was that we should just settle on one analogy. I have heard it as a watch on the heath, a computer, an alien spaceship, etc. Apparently people keep trying to come up with different analogies to prove their creativity, or that they find more convincing. But does it really matter? They all make the same point and are equally convincing. It's not as if you found a computer you would say it's obviously designed, but if you found a watch, you wouldn't quite be sure. Let's quit pretending they matter and just stick with the venerable watch.
My second thought was "what is a heath?" I've read that example a hundred times and I've never bothered to look up the word. Where we find the watch isn't important of course, but it's time to admit my ignorance. I looked up heath, and it is a wasteland or open barren area. A watch in a forest wouldn't be quite the same thing.
Finally to my main point, which is the failure of the analogy. I haven't seen this aspect addressed much, although the idea goes back to David Hume. I fully agree that any of those objects are obviously designed. The question is what aspect indicates their design? The assumption is that we know they are designed because they are complex, and therefore any other complex thing is designed. The conclusion fails even if the initial premise is true, and that has been discussed often, but I want to point out that the premise doesn't even hold. We do not think the watch is designed because it is complex.
Imagine you found a screw on the heath. This is not nearly as complex as a spaceship, computer, or watch. It's really quite simple, with no interlocking parts. Would you think it was designed or that it arose spontaneously? Obviously, it was designed. Someone who thought it arose naturally would be mocked as much as the person who thought the spaceship arose naturally. We infer design without the complexity. We don't need an imaginary scenario of finding things on heaths. We find old stone arrowheads all of the time. They are very simple, yet we know they are designed.
Or we could find a bone. Now if we just find a regular bone, maybe a vertebrae, we do not think this was obviously designed. This is true even though the bone itself is rather complex. But if we find a simple long bone sharpened into a point, we will conclude it is designed as a weapon.
An analogy is only useful if it accurately picks out points of similarity between two items. In the analogy of a watch with a living thing, it is thought that the element that suggests design in the watch is its complexity, and that is similar to the complexity of life. However, it is clear that the element that suggests design is not complexity. Very simple things like a sharpened bone are obviously designed, and more complex things, such as a snowflake, are not designed. We can infer design because we know something about the designer, humans, and the methods and purposes for which we design. So even before we look at whether the conclusion follows from the premise, we must reject the premise.
No comments:
Post a Comment