Did Darwin Destroy the Design Argument?


http://www.anthonyflood.com/sadowskydarwindesign.htm

From The International Philosophical Quarterly, 28 (1988), 95-104.

Did Darwin Destroy the Design Argument?

James A. Sadowsky, S.J.

Richard Dawkins claims that

. . . although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.1

This is because Darwin presented an alternative explanation for the apparent design in the biological world. The apparent design is there not because somebody wanted it to be there but rather because of the operation of natural selection upon random variations. Dawkins claims that

. . . All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker, in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.2

Darwin tells us that it was the theory of natural selection that caused him to give up on the design argument. He says:

. . . The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by a man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the Variation of Domestic Animals and Plants, and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered.3

How far he had come can be seen from what he says of his one time admiration of Paley.

The logic of this book (Evidences of Christianity) and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley’s premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation.4

Just how is natural selection supposed to rule out design? As far as I can see, the reasoning is like this. Variations are in useless as well as useful directions. The only reason why the latter alone remain is that the former are eliminated by the struggle for existence and competition. (“Many are called but few are chosen.”) What accounts for the appearance of design overall is the disappearance of the unfit. There are no hostile witnesses to testify against design. They have all been assassinated! Actually, the idea of natural selection is old. Aquinas explains it in his summary of Empedocles:

And in all these things only that which happened to be suitable for some utility, as if it were made for that utility, was preserved. For such things had a disposition which made them suitable for being preserved, not because of some agent’s intending an end, but because of that which is per se purposeless, i.e., by chance. On the other hand, whatever did not have such a disposition was destroyed, and is destroyed, daily. Thus Empedocles said that in the beginning things which were part ox and part man were generated.5

Flew sums up what he regards as the Darwinian challenge to design in these words:

To the earlier and, if you like, philosophical objections of the last paragraph but one, Darwin supplied massive scientific reinforcement. For this showed, if only in outline, how eyes and every other organ and organism might, indeed, have evolved without design; unlike the first watches which, along with their successors, we certainly know to have been both designed and manufactured. And, furthermore, if it is possible on these lines to provide a naturalistic account of the origins of all the species of living things, then there is no other and greater marvel in the universe for which we are forced to postulate supernatural design. (It is not without reason that Christians of the more old-time kind––Christians, you might say, of the Paley tendency––have seen evolutionary biology as the most dangerous science; nor that, in the opposite camp, enthusiastic members of the Rationalist Press Association have earned the nickname “Darwin’s Witnesses!)6

Unless I misread him, Flew had shortly afterward second thoughts about Darwin’s success.

The two other natural obstacles to a consistent secular naturalism are both proposed sites for particular creative interventions within a universe created “in the beginning.” These are the origin of life and of the major generic differences. Ever since Pasteur proved that there is on earth now no natural generation of living things from the non-living, we have needed, but not found, at least an account of how, in some likely past conditions, living cells could have evolved from nonliving matter. Ever since Darwin we have needed but it seems not yet got, a similar sketch of how some major development––that of flight, for instance––could have occurred through natural selection without the hypothesized necessary succession of small changes at any state constituting a ruinous selective disadvantage.7

Not having the qualifications to decide on whether the biological world could have reached its present stage without the intervention of an intelligent agent, I leave this issue to whatever fate the progress of discovery may have in store for it. I shall simply assume that the earlier Flew was correct and ask what, if anything, follows from that.

One thing that Darwin is alleged to have shown is that there is no need to postulate mysterious life forces such as entelechies. How did Darwin show that? After all not even Paley believed in life forces. Certainly they are not necessary for the existence of purposeful activity. Otherwise, a man-made watch would have to have the non-vital equivalent of a life force! Strictly speaking, non-intelligent things made by intelligent agents do not have purposes. Their purposes are the purposes of their producers or of those that use them. When Paley and his followers spoke of the purposes of living beings, they had in mind the purposes of God, their maker. Moreover, it is difficult to see what these vital principles would accomplish if they did exist. To say that a being acts for a purpose implies not only that it wants something but also that it produces an effect that enables it to attain that purpose. It must do something to something. Just what is it that these vital principles actually do? I have yet to see a satisfactory attempt to spell out how they have the effect they are supposed to have. Is the claim being made that given two beings, only one of which possessing a vital principle, but containing the same collocation of molecules, one would act like a living being but the other would not? Is it a metaphysical battery? Or is it a necessary condition for the very existence of that collocation of molecules? Most mysterious! In any case, how can there be said to be purpose in these organisms unless they have some kind of consciousness that actually produces results?

Leaving aside the question of vital principles as a non-issue, let us turn to the real question. Suppose a creationist comes to accept the volition of species by natural selection. Ought he now to conclude that what had served as evidence of design no longer does so? In my opinion, no. If the structure of the human eye is evidence that it is there so that there can be sight, then the fact that the process that brought it into being is an unconscious one should not cause him to doubt his original conclusion. Even the creationist8does not believe that his eyes are designed. On his own showing only the eyes of the first human being were designed by the creator. The eyes of every other human being were brought about by the operation of blind natural forces. God had nothing directly to do with his eyes. Of course, he believes that God designed his eyes remotely in the sense that without the designing of the first human body the blind forces that produced his own eyes would never have been in place. But if when he was a creationist he could accept that the bodies of all but the most remote of his human ancestors were the result of blind activity, why can he not after his conversion apply the same principle to his non-human ancestors? This point was made many years ago by Asa Gray, the friend and confidant of Darwin.

. . . If the argument from structure to design is convincing when drawn from a particular animal, say a Newfoundland dog, and is not weakened by the knowledge that this dog came from similar parents, would it be at all weakened if it were ascertained that he was a remote descendant of the mastiff or some other breed, or that both these and other breeds came (as is suspected) from some wolf? If not, how is the argument for design in the structure of our particular dog affected by the supposition that his wolfish progenitor came from a post-tertiary wolf, perhaps less unlike an existing one that the dog in question is to some other of the numerous existing races of dogs, and that this post-tertiary came from an equally or more different tertiary wolf? And if the argument from structure to design is not invalidated by our present knowledge that our individual dog was developed from a single organic cell, how is it invalidated by the supposition of an analogous natural descent, through a long line of connected forms, from such a cell, or from some simple animal, existing ages before there were any dogs?9

The same idea is advance by Anthony Kenny:

On the other hand, if the argument from design every had any value, it has not been substantially affected by the scientific investigation of living organisms from Descartes through Darwin to the present day. If Descartes is correct in regarding the activities of animals as mechanistically explicable, then a system may operate teleologically while being mechanistic in structure. If Darwin is correct in ascribing the origin of species to natural selection, then the production of a teleological structure may be due in the first instance to factors which are purely mechanistic. But both may be right and yet the ultimate explanation of the phenomena be finalistic. The only argument refuted by Darwin would be one which said: wherever there is adaptation to environment we must see the immediate activity of an intelligent being. But the argument from design did not claim this; and indeed it was an essential step in the argument that lower animals and natural agents did not have minds. The argument was only that the ultimate explanation of such adaptation must be found in intelligence; and if this argument was correct, then any Darwinian success merely inserts an extra step between the phenomena to be explained and their ultimate explanation.10

Thomas Huxley is another witness to this point of view. He wrote:

The teleology which supposed that the eye, such as we see it in man, or one of the higher vertebra, was made with the precise structure it exhibits for the purpose of enabling the animal which possesses it to see, has undoubtedly received its death blow. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that there is a wider teleology which is not touched by the doctrine of Evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental principle of Evolution. This proposition is that the whole world, living and not living, is the result of the mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of the forces possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed. If this be rue, it is no less certain that the existing world lay potentially in the cosmic vapour, and that a sufficient intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of the molecules of that vapour, have predicted, say the state of fauna of Britain in 1869, with as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the vapour of the breath on a cold winter’s day.11

Perhaps it is going a bit too far to say 1869. If man has free will, then once he comes on the scene events occur that cannot be read off from the primordial set-up of our world. Not only the chance volitions, but also their non-volitional effects. The fauna of 1869 are to no small extent the result of volitions that did occur but need not have occurred. They could not, therefore, have been read off the “cosmic vapour.”

But the rest is true. Before the coming of humanity and absent the interference of a free outside agent, there were no real alternatives to the events that occurred in the material world. In the words of William James:

. . . Possibilities that fail to get realized are, for determinism, pure illusions: they never were possibilities at all. There is nothing inchoate, it says, about this universe of ours, all that was or is or shall be actual in it having been from eternity virtually. The cloud of alternatives our minds escort this mass of actuality withal is a cloud of sheer deceptions, to which “impossibilities” is the only name that rightfully belongs.12

In particular in the sense in which we can so label our volitions and their effects, there was nothing “chancy” about Darwin’s variations.(Remember, no one had as yet heard of Heisenberg.)They, both the favorable and the unfavorable, were precontained in the original “programme.” They were random only in the sense in which the results of a dice-throw are so. Given all the circumstances in which the dice are thrown, there is but one possible outcome: the one that occurs. Once the material world is launched by that once-for-all throw of the dice, there is no turning back. There are no starts and stops. Surely, Davies and Lovelock are wrong when they claim:

If there is one solitary fact which emerges distinctly from evolutionary studies, it is that evolution is not the execution of a consummate overall plan, divine or otherwise. There have been far too many false starts, bosh shots and changes of intention for that.13

Barring outside interventions, there was no stopping what had been started; there was nothing that could correspond to a change of intention. If the dice were thrown by an omniscient observer, he must have read off from the original state all that would happen until the coming of man. Every variation would have been foreseen and either chosen or accepted as a by-product of what had been chosen. One can speak of an effective change of intention only if something that was originally supposed to happen does not. Such a change requires an intervention from outside––something Davies and Lovelock do not claim to have taken place. The “useless” variations are not evidence against design unless design is regarded as being inconsistent with foreseen by-products. But why should that be so? Maybe the elimination of the by-products would also eliminate the desirable things whose by-products they are. In that case it is useful to permit the existence of the unselected variation.

With the arrival of man there is another use for unselected variation. Where the selection occurs directly or indirectly as the result of human choice, it is not up to God which variation gets selected. The provision of many variations each of which could survive in a different environment improves the possibility of survival for a species despite man’s ability to produce a different environment from what was in the original programme.

Now that we have determined in what sense variations are random in Darwin’s system, we can say that if the present state of the material world bears the marks of intelligence, then it was either produced immediately by an intelligent agent or ultimately derives from some state that was immediately produced by an intelligent agent. Otherwise, we run into an infinite regress: they cannot all have been mediately produced by an intelligent being. This does not imply the emergence of order from disorder. Just as no one would deny that chickens were designed because he found out they evolve from eggs, but would conclude that eggs, themselves, were designed, so we should have to conclude that the original state of material was every bit as orderly and designed as the present state would be if it had been created from nothing.

Perhaps we can see this even more clearly if we consider an unequivocal case of the adaptation means to end. Suppose I look up in the sky and see the following formation:

Sadowsky, there is a chest of

gold buried in your garden.

Interpreting the above as a message, I proceed to dig. Lo and behold, the buried treasure turns up. I should be hard put to doubt that the formation in the clouds was anything but the result of someone’s intellectual activity. It would be inconsistent to believe both that these shapes had meaning and that they were merely the result of non-rational forces.14 Remember that symbols do not mean. Intelligent agents mean by them. Some intelligence is either immediately or remotely responsible for the fact that these shapes are in the sky. This conclusion remains even if the shapes that are there now are there because they evolved from some prior set-up, which in turn had evolved from yet a previous set-up, etc. What we do know is that some prior arrangement was immediately brought about with the intention of conveying someone’s thought. If I do not accept that, then I cannot interpret the shapes as being a language any more than I can regard a parrot as using a language when it makes the sounds “Polly want a cracker.”

If the situation were the same for the biological world, we should have no choice (it seems to me) but to accept that its original form was what it was because someone wanted what it has evolved into. But J. J. Mackie has what he regards as an answer to this. Here it is.

The stock response, however, to the suggestion of alternative, naturalistic, explanations of the supposed marks of design is to say that they only shift the problem further back. If we explain an organism as having arisen by generation and vegetation––and even if we trace these processes in detail––it is said that we still have to explain the parents or ancestors that produced it. If we explain whole species by organic evolution, we still have to explain the primeval organisms from which evolution began. And if we explain these by the action of radiant energy on inorganic mixtures of gases, we still have to explain the atomic structures and the radiation that makes this action possible. But, on the one hand, we have seen that in such a shifting back the burden of explanation has grown lighter: there is literally less to explain. And on the other hand, a similar response is available to the naturalist: if you explain the order in the natural world by a divine plan, you still have to explain the order in the divine mind. As Philo says, “a mental world or universe of ideas requires a cause as much as does a material world or universe of objects.”15

Two remarks are called for. Why is there “less to explain”? Because “If, as we are supposing, the future developments are accounted for by the initial conditions and materials and laws alone, then it is only for those initial conditions and materials and laws as they are in themselves that any further explanation could reasonably be sought. We must not overload the explanandum (sic) by adding to it, even as a potentiality which we can presume it to have accounted for already.”16 Perhaps one or another of my readers can tell me how this is supposed to help. I honestly do not see how it does. All I said was that this final stage or else some preceding stage is the work of an intelligent being. The only explanation that occurs to me is that he is convinced that the material universe does not exhibit real design. I should like to see if he would treat my example in the same way.

Now to the second point. If an object needs an explanation because it has attribute X, then its explanation must lie in the class of objects that have the attribute non-X. So if an object requires an explanation because it is designed, then in that last analysis it will have as its explanation a non-designed object. And if that non-designed object must be intelligent, then it follows that intelligence as such does not require an explanation. Likewise if we have to do with a being that is both designed and intelligent, then its cause will be both intelligent and non-designed. As Flew tells us there is nothing outlandish about accepting the fact that some things lack an explanation:

It is often thought, by naturalists as well as by theists, that it is an unavoidable defect in every naturalistic system, and one which––if only it happened to be true––theism could remedy, that in any such naturalistic system the most fundamental laws of matter an energy cannot be susceptible of any further explanation. Yet this is not, if the system is true, a defect; nor is it one which, even if theism were true, theism could remedy. For it is not a contingent fact about one sort of system, but a logical truth about all explanations of facts. The ultimate facts about God would have to be, for precisely the same reason, equally inexplicable. In each and every case we must necessarily find at the end of every explanatory road some ultimates which have simply to be accepted as the fundamental truth about the way things are. And this itself is a contention, not about the lamentable contingent facts of the human condition, but about what follows necessarily from the nature of explanation.17

Flew seems not to realize it, but he is really presenting the logic of the cosmological argument: beings that needs an explanation (contingent beings) depend on beings that do not have an explanation. The question is not whether there are things that do not need an explanation but rather how to identify them. The important thing to retain here is that not everything can be explained and that this is in the very nature of things. And in particular, designers, as such are not in need of explanation.

To sum up then, I do not see that Darwinism adds any essentially new objections to Paley’s argument. Most of the objections could have been raised in Paley’s own day. Typical is the following:

There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with a mouse. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.18

Surely, Darwin could have written this before he ever set out for South America?

The following looks a little more formidable:

When is ask him [Asa Gray] whether he looks at each variation in the rock-pigeon, by which man has made by accumulation a pouter or fantail pigeon, as providentially designed for man’s amusement, he does not know what to answer; and if he, or anyone admits these are accidental, as far as purpose is concerned (of course not accidental as to their source or origin); then I can see no reason why he should rank the accumulated variations by which the beautifully adapted woodpecker has been formed as providentially designed.19

The first point is that this difficulty, for what it is worth, could be raised even in a creationist perspective. True, there are no new species. But there are new varieties. Nature selects some of them and rejects others. Are we supposed to believe that God designed the selected but did not design the rejected varieties? Once again, it is independent of the evolution of species.

Secondly, why are we so certain that these rejected varieties are undesigned? After all, they do manage to put in an appearance. They must be adapted as long as there continue to be members of those varieties.

A third answer is given by Boedder:

We may put Darwin’s argument in concise form as follows: If some adaptations of certain antecedents to certain consequents are explained by design of the Creator, all must be explained so, however trifling they may appear. But not all can reasonably be explained so; for instance, it cannot be reasonably referred to creative design that pieces of rock tumbling from a precipice are found fit for building houses, or that man turns rock pigeons artificially into fantail pigeons, or that a flash of lightning kills an innocent man, or that a swallow snaps up a gnat. There is consequently no sufficient reason for admitting design at all.

What shall we answer to this? At first sight it might seems reasonable to doubt whether it is necessary to admit design everywhere in nature, if you admit it anywhere. There is indeed no immediate appearance of intrinsic contradiction in the idea of a universe in which only the more important operations should be guided by design. Considering, however that the first Designer of the world is self-ex­istent and infinitely perfect, He must know from eternity not only in general, but in detail, all conditionally future results of any plan possible. Moreover, His infinite wisdom necessarily prevents any event from happening, the occurrence of which would in no way serve His plan. From this it follows that every effect in the universe has been designed by God, inasmuch as He has foreseen it, and has from eternity decreed not to prevent its happening but to make its occurrence serve the end of all creation. Granting then Darwin’s assertion that we cannot be consistent with ourselves, unless we admit that all effects in nature have been foreseen and preordained, we deny altogether that there is anything repugnant to reason in this admission. . . . But there is nothing intrinsically repugnant in the statement that God by one act of His infinite intellect foresaw all events, and by one act of His infinite will subordinated each of them to a particular good purpose. On the contrary, this cannot be denied without denying what is logically connect with God’s infinite perfection.20

Granted that Darwin did not really weaken the design argument, we can ask how good it was to begin with. I have to say that it is not so strong as I should like it to be. Leon Pearl presents one design argument as follows:

(1)All objects possessing order in which the origin of order is known are human productions.

(2)The order in human products originates from intelligent design.

(3)The universe, its parts, and sub parts possess order. Therefore,

(4)Probably the order in the universe originated from intelligent design.21

The problem with this argument is that its first premise is not true. One only has to consider objects like bee hives, spider webs, ant hills, etc., to see that many astonishing “engineering feats” are performed who, it is generally agreed, do not know what they are doing, but are led, as it were, by an invisible hand to produce totally unintended results. It is not, therefore, simply an empirical fact that observed producers of elaborate “artifacts” are intelligent beings. One might be tempted to argue that just as the producer of the camera must be intelligent, so also the producer of the eye must be. But is the camera the proof that its maker is intelligent? Or is the proof elsewhere? I think the answer to this last question is in the affirmative. And that proof would be the sort of proof that might establish the existence of other minds: something like the proof that the indicator of the buried gold was proof of intelligence in action. It is just this kind of proof we seem to lack when we look at the human eye.

Remember the argument was not that only an intelligent being could have produced the shapes that led me to look for the treasure. Unless a person had had prior knowledge that these shapes were in fact commonly used by intelligent beings as symbols, he would not have had reason to assume that this is what they were. It is one thing to say that an arrangement could not serve as a message unless it had been produced with that intention and quite another that the arrangement in and of itself could not have been produced without its being intended. What follows from its not having been intended is that it cannot be taken as a message.

But the point is that these objections have nothing to do with evolution. Those who do not regard them as being sound should not let anything that Darwin said deter them from accepting the argument to design.

About these ads

11 responses to “Did Darwin Destroy the Design Argument?

  1. This is the thing about a traditional Catholic thinker – whether one agrees or disagrees, it is still interesting to read (or to hear) their words.

  2. One trouble with Dawkins is that his area of specialist knowledge is extremely narrow. His first book showed up his total ignorance of any sort of statistical analysis, so some of the things that he was stating as solid facts were statistically very, very unlikely indeed. Only a neo-Lamarkian hybrid theory(*) can explain how evolution happened in such a short time. (Yes, hundreds of millions of years is a short time when you look at the genetic changes involved).

    (*) Or a God-directed hypothesis, but I’ll rule that out with my helpful razor from William of Ockham.

    • Except in a few details, we are no more advanced than the Greeks in our arguments for or against the existence of God. It is a mystery that reason has done something to clarify, but nothing to solve.

  3. Agreed.

    When I read Ralph Cudworth’s (17th century) work on these matters I was struck by how easy he found it to show that various Greek philosophers had taken the different sides of the “modern” debate. This can still be done.

  4. Few atheists bother about Darwin. I only read him back in 1965 owing to the idea that Christians had that he was important but, though I how like Darwin, he still hardly seems germane to Christianity.

    Where is this design in the world? The idea that there is a mind out there is quite incredible.

    Paley rightly said that the stone needed no design but a watch did. That is because the watch is artificial and the stone natural. Nature looks way more like a stone than like a watch. In any case, by accepting that the stone was not designed then why should Paley not also admit that everything else was also free of design? There seems to be no adequate answer.

    James Sadowsky arbitrarily wants the daft dogma that free will means that we cannot see how people will choose and he even suggests that not even God can. That would certainly make God a less useful metaphysical assumption for philosophers in their thought experiments. Presumably, it is assumed so God is not blamed for the wicked deeds of men. But another liberal Catholic, Lord Acton, claimed that all power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely without looking at what this says about God and it clearly explains his wicked deeds of destroying whole cities as reported in the Bible.

    The idea that man introduces artificial selection, thus that God is not responsible for it as it must have all been all foreseen owing to free will is quite absurd:

    “With the arrival of man there is another use for unselected variation. Where the selection occurs directly or indirectly as the result of human choice, it is not up to God which variation gets selected. The provision of many variations each of which could survive in a different environment improves the possibility of survival for a species despite man’s ability to produce a different environment from what was in the original programme.”

    But James Sadowsky was happy with it. He seems to fall for what I used to call the King Lear fallacy that the king could give his daughters the realm yet remain king for if he gave man the sort of free will that James Sadowsky imagined then he would no longer be Almighty God.

    J.L. Mackie’s main point, from Philo, seemed to be: “what explains God?” The apology that there is no explanation needed is better taken at the beginning to save time on all the silly fallacies along the way. The stone needs no explanation presumably as we can see it is natural but cosmic intelligence is so far fetched, so alien to all human experience, that no explanation could make anyone belief it, least of all any of the Popes. Point to a Pope and you point to an atheist.

    Anyway, the proposed get out leads nowhere thus:

    “Now to the second point. If an object needs an explanation because it has attribute X, then its explanation must lie in the class of objects that have the attribute non-X. So if an object requires an explanation because it is designed, then in that last analysis it will have as its explanation a non-designed object. And if that non-designed object must be intelligent, then it follows that intelligence as such does not require an explanation.”

    Because we cannot explain everything does not mean there is a definite or intrinsic or particular class of things that cannot be explained. James Sadowsky errs in imposing the cosmological meme on Flew. His error is explicit below:

    “Flew seems not to realize it, but he is really presenting the logic of the cosmological argument: beings that needs an explanation (contingent beings) depend on beings that do not have an explanation. The question is not whether there are things that do not need an explanation but rather how to identify them. The important thing to retain here is that not everything can be explained and that this is in the very nature of things. And in particular, designers, as such are not in need of explanation.”

    Flew did not fail to realise what Sadowsky thought was germane, as it is clearly not germane. There is no starting point in logic apart from an arbitrary assumption. There is no reason why we should not begin with God, apart from the fact that he does not exist.

    Design is thrown up by the genes rather than sough by artificial selection. The variety of dogs from the wolf emerged by shelter from the law of the jungle rather than from selection itself, though tameness was selected for to begin with. The laxness of human culture allowed all sorts of phenotypes to emerge. It is way more down to nature than to nurture, as are the results every year in our gardens.

    There is no sufficient reason for anything, of course. The sceptics got that right for no valid argument can back up a thesis beyond mere assumption nor can no true observation. So we need to test by repeated attempts at refutation, as Popper rightly held.

    However, I agree that Darwin is not really relevant. Paley’s stone is enough. There is no real appearance of actual design.

    Against Christianity, Hume’s argument, that even the Catholic Church adopts in its official testing of the assumption of any miracle, viz. that it is way more likely that any story of a miracle is false than that it is true seems to see off not only all miracles, despite the exceptions the church “finds” but also the story of Christianity itself with anyone who cares to seriously think about it.

    Few atheists bother about Darwin. I only read him back in 1965 owing to the idea that Christians had that he was important but, though I how like Darwin, he still hardly seems germane to Christianity.

    Where is this design in the world? The idea that there is a mind out there is quite incredible.

    Paley rightly said that the stone needed no design but a watch did. That is because the watch is artificial and the stone natural. Nature looks way more like a stone than like a watch. In any case, by accepting that the stone was not designed then why should Paley not also admit that everything else was also free of design? There seems to be no adequate answer.

    James Sadowsky arbitrarily wants the daft dogma that free will means that we cannot see how people will choose and he even suggests that not even God can. That would certainly make God a less useful metaphysical assumption for philosophers in their thought experiments. Presumably, it is assumed so God is not blamed for the wicked deeds of men. But another liberal Catholic, Lord Acton, claimed that all power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely without looking at what this says about God and it clearly explains his wicked deeds of destroying whole cities as reported in the Bible.

    The idea that man introduces artificial selection, thus that God is not responsible for it as it must have all been all foreseen owing to free will is quite absurd:

    “With the arrival of man there is another use for unselected variation. Where the selection occurs directly or indirectly as the result of human choice, it is not up to God which variation gets selected. The provision of many variations each of which could survive in a different environment improves the possibility of survival for a species despite man’s ability to produce a different environment from what was in the original programme.”

    But James Sadowsky was happy with it. He seems to fall for what I used to call the King Lear fallacy that the king could give his daughters the realm yet remain king for if he gave man the sort of free will that James Sadowsky imagined then he would no longer be Almighty God.

    J.L. Mackie’s main point, from Philo, seemed to be: “what explains God?” The apology that there is no explanation needed is better taken at the beginning to save time on all the silly fallacies along the way. The stone needs no explanation presumably as we can see it is natural but cosmic intelligence is so far fetched, so alien to all human experience, that no explanation could make anyone belief it, least of all any of the Popes. Point to a Pope and you point to an atheist.

    Anyway, the proposed get out leads nowhere thus:

    “Now to the second point. If an object needs an explanation because it has attribute X, then its explanation must lie in the class of objects that have the attribute non-X. So if an object requires an explanation because it is designed, then in that last analysis it will have as its explanation a non-designed object. And if that non-designed object must be intelligent, then it follows that intelligence as such does not require an explanation.”

    Because we cannot explain everything does not mean there is a definite or intrinsic or particular class of things that cannot be explained. James Sadowsky errs in imposing the cosmological meme on Flew. His error is explicit below:

    “Flew seems not to realize it, but he is really presenting the logic of the cosmological argument: beings that needs an explanation (contingent beings) depend on beings that do not have an explanation. The question is not whether there are things that do not need an explanation but rather how to identify them. The important thing to retain here is that not everything can be explained and that this is in the very nature of things. And in particular, designers, as such are not in need of explanation.”

    Flew did not fail to realise what Sadowsky thought was germane, as it is clearly not germane. There is no starting point in logic apart from an arbitrary assumption. There is no reason why we should not begin with God, apart from the fact that he does not exist.

    Design is thrown up by the genes rather than sough by artificial selection. The variety of dogs from the wolf emerged by shelter from the law of the jungle rather than from selection itself, though tameness was selected for to begin with. The laxness of human culture allowed all sorts of phenotypes to emerge. It is way more down to nature than to nurture, as are the results every year in our gardens.

    There is no sufficient reason for anything, of course. The sceptics got that right for no valid argument can back up a thesis beyond mere assumption nor can no true observation. So we need to test by repeated attempts at refutation, as Popper rightly held.

    However, I agree that Darwin is not really relevant. Paley’s stone is enough. There is no real appearance of actual design.

    Against Christianity, Hume’s argument, that even the Catholic Church adopts in its official testing of the assumption of any miracle, viz. that it is way more likely that any story of a miracle is false than that it is true seems to see off not only all miracles, despite the exceptions the church “finds” but also the story of Christianity itself with anyone who cares to seriously think about it.

  5. Except in a few details, we are no more advanced than the Greeks in our arguments for or against the existence of God. It is a mystery that reason has done something to clarify, but nothing to solve.

    Possibly because there are few or no new arguments to be made, because there is so little to argue or reason about. There are only a limited number of arguments regarding any issue; once they are developed, you cannot get any new ones. In the same way that earlier scientists had it “easier” in making a name for themselves by discovering, for instance, chemical elements. Once one person has discovered Oxygen or Hydrogen, nobody else can. It doesn’t mean that those early chemists were superior to modern chemists. Simply that there are no new elements left to discover now (except extremely hard to make superheavy unstable ones with half lives in the nanoseconds).

    The “God Hypothesis” is simply grandfathered into our culture from primitive times, when people who knew nothing of science or how their world worked made up crazy stories about impossible beings to explain things that were mysterious to them. One can never truly refute such ideas, because they do not present a coherent or sensible hypothesis for testing. All one can do is discard them as no longer necessary. We know now that the things that these ideas once explained have natural explanations. The rains do not fail due to divine displeasure, but due to the physics of the Earth’s weather system. Plagues are not caused by divine anger, but by micro-organisms. And so on.

    Humans like to believe that there is more to life than there really is, and belief in the supernatural appears to satisfy that urge. We aren’t simply temporary bags of chemicals, doomed to eventually fail, but part of a “Plan”. It makes us feel important, and that the suffering of life has some purpose to it, when it has none.

    We know that “God” is just a Canaanite tribal totem, like myriad others, but who through a set of historical accidents is still believed in after the others have been rightlfully discarded. There really is no more to it than that.

  6. IanB
    You MIGHT be right. Your smug conviction of your own rightness is highly irritating. None of your assertions are proven fact or even relevant to the existence or otherwise of God. It cannot be proven one way or the other. If you had prefaced your statements with “I believe that….” that would be one thing. But to voice your literally miserable beliefs as a statement of supposed absolute fact with the implication that anyone who doesn’t share them is a fool is an act of arrogant self-assertion–shoving your ego into the faces of those who disagree.
    I have found you to be a decent sort with whom I mostly agree but on this matter:
    Up Yours.

  7. @ Ian B,

    “Humans like to believe that there is more to life than there really is, and belief in the supernatural appears to satisfy that urge. ”

    But not you. Are you not human? Are you above us, or below?

  8. Where did I say I wouldn’t like to believe? There are lots of things I’d like to believe. I’d like to believe that one day I’ll be as rich as Croesus, or even Bill Gates. But wanting to believe something isn’t a rational justification for believing it.

    Mr Ecks says I should prefix my assertions with “I believe that…” Well, that is true of every assertion and should, surely, be an “implied qualification” of everything we write. “I believe that the square on the hypotenuse is the sum of the squares on the two shorter sides”.

    Let’s put it this way; as a child, I went through a phase of believing Von Daniken’s Ancient Astronaut ideas. It was the 70s, you know. Later, I had to accept that there was no real evidence for it, and many good reasons to think it wrong. So I discarded that idea. Sure, it might be true. But anything in that sense might be true. For all I know, my cat might be a space alien shapeshifter who has blended into Earth society to prepare the way for an invasion. The list of “you can’t disprove that” ideas is enormous. Must I spend my life trying to disprove my cat’s space alien nature, or is it better just to accept that there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and move on?

  9. In a very strict sense the existence of god(s) cannot be proven, but with enough evidence it can be overwhelming and accepted as such by all rational people. Obviously, the non-existence of god(s) is impossible to prove, although a logically incoherent version of some gods might be shown to be untenable.

    In days of yore, or pre-Darwin, the variety, wonder and beauty of nature was enough to convince people of a creator god. In the more distant past the changing of seasons or extreme weather were enough to convince people of some kind of overlord(s) who had to be appeased to ensure summer came round or crops grew, or that one didn’t get struck by lightning. We have moved beyond these beliefs thanks to progress in knowledge, we can explain the formerly inexplicable events as natural phenomena that we have no control over. And isn’t that all religion has ever been: weak, ignorant and powerless humans trying to impose the illusion of control over things bigger than themselves, often with the false humility that goes with it?

  10. I don’t mean to suggest you should hold or not hold any belief. As I say you MIGHT be right. There is however no definitive proof of the non-existence of God either. As to what constitutes evidence that is another matter. It seems that if you speak outloud to God he does not (most people would agree, myself included) answer back outloud directly. There are however many people who state that they do experience contact with God and/or realities beyond this one. You set criteria for the existence of God that you do not find to be met. No problem with that at all. However I think that to say all assertions have an implied “I believe..” on the front of the engine so to speak is a little iffy. Your statements smacked of a Savonarola/Dawkins-type level of conviction of rightness and no small degree of contempt for those who don’t share your convictions.