By now, I’m sure most people are familiar with the infamous watchmaker argument by William Paley. The argument where a person walks into a field, finds a watch, and then concludes that there must have been an outside agent responsible for the watch being there, because the watch’s contrasting nature with that of its surroundings implies that it could not have been there on its own. This analogy is then extended into the argument that the natural world is in itself evidence of God, because the complexity of nature implies that there had to have been an intelligent designer behind it all. This argument makes an important assumption, that design can be in fact be recognised, without ever clearly stating exactly what design is.
What is design? How do we know when to recognise design?
First, for purposes of clarity, it is important to make the distinction between ‘divine’ design and ‘intelligent’ design’. Since products of human intelligence can be said to be intelligently designed, it would be be better to clarify theistic claims of a divine designer as being ‘divine’ design. Now that the distinction has been made, we can move on to how one can recognise design.
When we look at an airplane, at a microwave oven, instinctively we know that these objects are the product of intelligent design. But what makes us realise that they are in fact designed? The answer lies in how we perceive the world. We recognise objects such as the one mentioned because we recognise intuitively that they are not a part of nature. The human concept of recognising design comes through comparison with the non-human-designed world. When we find something that is out of sync with the natural world, something which does not fit in, we presume an outside agent is responsible for this anomaly. That is to say, the concept of comparison is intrinsically tied in with detecting design. One can only detect design, through comparison. Design itself does not have any measurable qualities, which will allow for someone to look at an object and measure its level of design.
Some might notice that this argument relies upon a base premise, that there is no external agent involved in the ‘designing’ of the natural world. Some might accuse me of begging the question, but this is really a simple matter of logic. As with any other logical argument, one always starts from a point where there are as few entities as possible involved in the argument, and build on it from there, including entities as need dictates. This is no different. We start off from a naturalistic point of view, which holds as few assumptions as possible, and then work from this naturalistic point to see if there is any need to consider the presence of a divine entity at all. To assume that absolutely everything was designed, without any proof whatsoever, is essentially the same as saying that nothing was designed.
What about divine design? How do we go about recognising it?
Now, I’m sure that atheists, when asking for proof of God, would have seen the following statement, in its various forms: “Look around you! The world is so perfectly designed! It is so glaringly obvious that there had to be a Creator behind everything!”.
What this statement is essentially saying is that complexity and harmoniousness are in themselves proof of design. Let’s analyse this for a second. Can complexity be considered proof of design? This idea can be easily disproved by a simple example: the paper clip. By no means is this simple object complex in nature, but it is obvious that this object is the product of intelligent design. Why? Because there is nothing like it in nature. Iron does not twist itself into a paper clip on a natural basis. Our constant interactions with nature should be enough to tell us that. Once the idea that complexity = design is ruled out, what can the theist then resort to as proof of design?
As for harmony, why should it even be considered part of design? To take an example in physics, systems tend to settle at an equilibrium point, without any outside interference. In a sense, a system which is settled at equilibrium could be considered harmonious. In ecology, studying certain populations of animals gives rise to a realisation that populations towards an evolutionarily stable strategy. This idea is best illustrated by Richard Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”.
So what does this all mean?
To cut a long story short, it is impossible to recognise divine design. As stated previously, recognising design functions on comparison with the natural world. Ergo, it is impossible to point at something which is part of the natural world, and claim that it is designed, since the very nature of recognising design requires that it be compared to something apart from itself. And trying to determine whether something from the natural world is designed, is in essence trying to compare the natural world to the natural world, which is a contradiction in terms, and renders a conclusion impossible.
Also, in saying that one can recognise divine design, the theist is caught in a paradox of his own without even realising it. As mentioned earlier, considering how we as humans only recognise design by comparing an entity to the natural world, it is key that the natural world first be assumed to be undesigned (as said earlier). How then, can the theist say that the natural world is designed, since the key to recognising divine design requires that natural world be undesigned?
By Benison Pang