Element contents
The Design Argument
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 December 2018
Summary
This Element analyzes the various forms that design arguments for the existence of God can take, but the main focus is on two such arguments. The first concerns the complex adaptive features that organisms have. Creationists who advance this argument contend that evolution by natural selection cannot be the right explanation. The second design argument - the argument from fine-tuning - begins with the fact that life could not exist in our universe if the constants found in the laws of physics had values that differed more than a little from their actual values. Since probability is the main analytical tool used, the Element provides a primer on probability theory.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108558068Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 29 November 2018
References
Arbuthnot, J. (1710). “An Argument for Divine Providence, Taken from the Constant Regularity Observ’d in the Births of Both Sexes.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 27: 186–190.Google Scholar
Bartha, P. (2016). “Analogy and Analogical Reasoning.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, E. (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/reasoning-analogy/.Google Scholar
Behe, M. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press.Google Scholar
Behe, M. (2004). “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution.” In Dembski, W. and Ruse, M. (eds.), Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge University Press, pp. 352–370.Google Scholar
Behe, M. (2006). “Whether Intelligent Design Is Science: A Response to the Opinion of the Court in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District.” Discovery Institute Web Site. www.discovery.org/f/697.Google Scholar
Branch, G. (2017). “Paley the Plagiarist?” https://ncse.com/blog/2017/01/paley-plagiarist-0018388.Google Scholar
Buckland, W. (1836). Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology Vol. 1. The Perfect Library, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairn-Smith, A. G. (1982). Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, B. (1974). “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology.” In Longair, M. (ed.), Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data. Reidel, pp. 291–298.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. and Harvey, P. (1977). “Primate Ecology and Social Organization.” Journal of the Zoological Society of London 183: 1–39.Google Scholar
Collins, R. (2003). “Evidence for Fine-Tuning.” In Manson, N. (ed.), God and Design. Routledge, pp. 178–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, R. (2009). “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe.” In Craig, W. and Moreland, J. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 202–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colyvan, M., Garfield, J., and Priest, G. (2005). “Problems with the Argument from Fine Tuning.” Synthese 145: 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, J. (1979). “Genes That Violate Mendel’s Rules.” Scientific American 240: 134–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darwin, C. (1874). The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Murray, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Doolittle, W. F. and Sapienza, C. (1980). “Selfish Genes, the Phenotype Paradigm and Genome Evolution.” Nature 284: 601–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Draper, P. (1989). “Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists.” Noûs 23: 331–350.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. (1914). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton University Press, 1954.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1987). “The SAP Also Rises: A Critical Examination of the Anthropic Principle.” American Philosophical Quarterly 24: 307–317.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fitelson, B. (2011). “Favoring, Likelihoods, and Bayesianism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8: 666–672.Google Scholar
Fitelson, B., Stephens, C., and Sober, E. (1999). “How Not to Detect Design, a Review of William Dembski’s The Design Inference.” Philosophy of Science 66: 472–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest, B. and Gross, P. (2004). Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, M. (2006). “Counterexamples to a Likelihood Theory of Evidence.” Minds and Machines 16: 319–338.Google Scholar
Forster, M. and Sober, E. (2004). “Why Likelihood?” In Taper, M. and Lee, S. (eds.), The Nature of Scientific Evidence. University of Chicago Press, pp. 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1987). “The Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy: The Argument from Design and the Anthropic Principle Applied to Wheeler Universes.” Mind 96: 331–340.Google Scholar
Howson, C. and Urbach, P. (1993). Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. Open Court.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Coleman, D. (ed.), Cambridge University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1965). The Logic of Decision. University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition, 1983.Google Scholar
Kingsolver, J. and Koehl, M. (1985). “Aerodynamics, Thermoregulation, and the Evolution of Insect Wings: Differential Scaling and Evolutionary Change.” Evolution 39: 488–504.Google Scholar
Kotzen, M. (2012). “Selection Biases in Likelihood Arguments.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63: 825–839.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. (2017). “Units and Levels of Selection.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, E. (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/selection-units/.Google Scholar
McGrew, L. (2016). “Four (or so) New Fine-Tuning Arguments.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 8: 85–106.Google Scholar
McGrew, T., McGrew, L., and Vestrup, E. (2001). “Probabilities and the Fine-Tuning Argument: A Sceptical View.” Mind 110: 1027–1037.Google Scholar
Meyer, S. (2009). Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Monton, B. (2006). “God, Fine-Tuning, and the Problem of Old Evidence.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57: 405–424.Google Scholar
Narveson, J. (2003). “God by Design?” in Manson, N. (ed.), God and Design. Routledge, pp. 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Numbers, R. (2004). “Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection.” In Lustig, A., Richards, R., and Ruse, M. (eds.), Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–104.Google Scholar
Orgel, L. & Crick, F. (1980). “Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite.” Nature 284: 604–607.Google Scholar
Orr, H. A. (1997). “Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again).” Boston Review, December/January. pp. 41–54.Google Scholar
Orzack, S. and Sober, E. (1994). “Optimality Models and the Test of Adaptationism.” American Naturalist 143: 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paley, W. (1802). Natural Theology, or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Rivington.Google Scholar
Palazzo, A. and Gregory, T. (2014). “The Case for Junk DNA.” PLOS Genetics 10.5: e1004351. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351Google Scholar
Priest, G. (1981). “The Argument from Design.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59: 422–431.Google Scholar
Psillos, S. (2007). “The Fine Structure of Inference to the Best Explanation.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74: 441–448.Google Scholar
Pyle, A. (2006). Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: A Reader’s Guide. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. (2012). “Fine-Tuning and the Infrared Bulls-Eye.” Philosophical Studies 160: 287–303.Google Scholar
Robson, J. (1990). “The Fiat and Finger of God: The Bridgewater Treatises”. In Helmstadter, R., Lightman, B., and Bernard, V. (eds.). Victorian Faith in Crisis: Essays on Continuity and Change in Nineteenth-Century Religious Belief. Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
Russell, R. (1912). “On the Notion of Cause.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 13: 1–26.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1978). “Religion and Science: A New Look at Hume’s Dialogues.” Philosophical Studies 33: 143–176.Google Scholar
Schupbach, J. (2005). “Paley’s Inductive Inference to Design.” Philosophia Christi 7: 2.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. (2007). Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, N. and Joplin, K. (1999). “Redundant Complexity: A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry.” Philosophy of Science 66: 268–282.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1970). “Scientific Inference.” In Colodny, R. (ed.), The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories. University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. (2009). “William Paley’s ‘Lost’ Intelligent Design.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 31: 55–77.Google ScholarPubMed
Sober, E. (1986). “Explanatory Presupposition.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64: 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (1999). “Testability.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 73: 47–76.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (2002). “Intelligent Design and Probability Reasoning.” International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 52: 65–80.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (2003). “The Argument from Design.” In Manson, N. (ed.), God and Design. Routledge, pp. 25–53. Reprinted in W. Mann (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion, 2004, pp. 117–147.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (2004). “Likelihood, Model Selection, and the Duhem-Quine Problem.” Journal of Philosophy 101: 1–22.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (2007a). “Intelligent Design Theory and the Supernatural: The ‘God or Extra-Terrestrials’ Reply.” Faith and Philosophy 24: 72–82.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (2007b). “What’s Wrong with Intelligent Design?” Quarterly Review of Biology 82: 1–8.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (2008). Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (2009). “Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence: Evidential Transitivity in Connection with Fossils, Fishing, Fine-Tuning, and Firing Squads.” Philosophical Studies 143: 63–90.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (2012). “Coincidences and How to Think about Them.” In European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings 2009, Springer, pp. 355–374.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (2015). Ockham’s Razors: A User’s Manual. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (forthcoming-a). “A Bayesian Double Negative: A Critique of Hume’s Treatment of the Design Argument in the Dialogues and of the Design Argument Itself.” In Williford, K. (ed.), Essays on Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Routledge.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (forthcoming-b). “Is Fine-Tuning Evidence for God’s Existence? No.” In Peterson, M. and VanArragon, R. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion. Wiley-Blackwell, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Sober, E. and Orzack, J. (2003). “Common Ancestry and Natural Selection.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54: 423–437.Google Scholar
Sober, E. and Steel, M. (2002). “Testing the Hypothesis of Common Ancestry.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 218: 395–408.Google Scholar
Sober, E. and Steel, M. (2017). “Similarities as Evidence for Common Ancestry: A Likelihood Epistemology.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 68: 617–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2004). The Existence of God. Oxford University Press. 2nd edition, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titelbaum, M. (2013). Quitting Certainties: A Bayesian Framework Modeling Degrees of Belief. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1982a). “Evidential Impact of Base Rates.” In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, pp. 153–160.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1982b). “Judgments of and by Representativeness.” In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–98.Google Scholar
Vassend, O, Sober, E., and Fitelson, B. (2017). “The Philosophical Significance of Stein’s Paradox.” European Journal for the Philosophy of Science 7: 411–433.Google Scholar
Weisberg, J. (2005). “Firing Squads and Fine-Tuning: Sober on the Design Argument.” British Society for the Philosophy of Science 56: 809–821.Google Scholar
Weisberg, J. (2010). “A Note on Design: What’s Fine-Tuning Got to Do with It?” Analysis 70.3: 431–438.Google Scholar
Whewell, W. (1833). Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theology. Kessinger Publishing, 2014.Google Scholar
White, R. (2015). “The Argument from Cosmological Fine-Tuning.” In Rosen, G., Byrne, A., Cohen, J., and Shiffrin, S. (eds.), The Norton Introduction to Philosophy. Norton, pp. 45–50.Google Scholar
Zach, R. (1978). “Selection and Dropping of Whelks by Northwestern Crows.” Behaviour 67: 134–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J. and Zhang, K. (2015). “Likelihood and Consilience: On Forster’s Counterexamples to the Likelihood Theory of Evidence.” Philosophy of Science 82: 930–940.Google Scholar
- 7
- Cited by