The “Who Designed the Designer” Argument Demolished in Three Easy Steps

_{Barry Arrington

August 5, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Step 1: Assume that Craig Venter succeeds in developing an artificial life form and releases it into the wild.

Step 2: Assume that a researcher (let’s call him John) later finds one of Venter’s life forms, examines it, and concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer.

Step 3: John’s design inference is obviously correct. Note that John’s design inference is not any less correct if he (a) does not know who Craig Venter is; and (b) is unable to say who designed Craig Venter.

Now that was easy. Does it say anything about the paucity and/or weakness of our opponents’ arguments that they think the “Who designed the designer” argument is one of their best?

Comments

The problem is not with any particular instantiation of the design argument, the problem comes up when people try to broaden into universal applicability, i.e. one where exceptions are not allowed. That is when the argument leads to logical incoherence. All ID has to do is limit the argument to specific cases that can be evaluated at their own merits, and the criticism would not come up. By claiming that the argument is universally valid, as you did in an earlier post, it becomes a legitimate target for geralised analysis and it will be shown to be incoherent, time and time again. From the responses here, most people do allow at least one exception. If there can be one exception, can't there be more? Why does the argument not get expanded to include whatever exceptions are necessary to make it logically coherent? That would be make it more precise and less open to this particular criticism. Until that is done, people will continue to point out the logical weakness of the generalised design argument, and rightly so, in my opinion. fGfaded_Glory_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Neil R, You state to Johnnyb: "You respond to me as if I am making that “who designed the designer?” argument. But I am not." But your statement at 11...: "I don’t see that your 'demolition' has done anything to avoid that infinite regression problem." ....seems to lend credence to the argument. What gives?CannuckianYankee_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

johnnyb (13)
Though you only made one point, you are wrong on two
I don't think I am wrong on any. You respond to me as if I am making that "who designed the designer?" argument. But I am not. I was only commenting on why some people use that argument, and thus on what would need to be demolished. For myself, I don't much like using such rhetorical devices, and prefer to keep to the real issues.Neil Rickert_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

Good one Barry. Thank you.T. lise_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

Jack, Thanks. Another aspect of Neil's post, which didn't strike me at first, but now has - "The purpose of raising that question is to show that the argument 'It is complex, therefore it must have been designed' will lead to an infinite regression." True, it will lead to an infinite regression if one's a priori is materialism. Why is it necessary to start from materialism? The materialist will say that through materialism we find the scientific method. Well that's fine, but the question itself is not scientific, so why would the scientific method even be relevant? I swear, the way these arguments are twisted around two entirely different premises (that of metaphysical materialism and that of science) can draw a person into the quandary easily if not on guard; such that what may appear reasonable on the surface begins to appear reasonable in the thick and thin; but it's not.CannuckianYankee_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

Concerning cosmological ID I've always wondered why it is almost never pointed out that the "who designed the designer" challenge is completely irrelevant, for the simple reason that even the most secular scientists now agree that time (along with space, matter, and energy) came into being at the birth of the universe. Assuming the universe was designed (evidence from fine tuning), the origin of time at the birth of the universe means that the designer has no past (present or future, for that matter) since he/she/it created* time. That which has no past has no origin or history, and therefore no designer by definition. This seems obvious to me, and renders the "who designed the designer" argument a category mistake:
A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error in which things of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another, or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.
On the other hand, I could be one of those mindless, uneducated, knuckle-dragging Christian religious fundamentalists who can't think logically, but who writes AI computer code and earns his living as a software engineer in aerospace R&D. * The use of the past tense here is obviously inappropriate for reasons given in the text that follows. However, this is the only option given the constraints of language.GilDodgen_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

Thank you, CY. Neil must not have read the first comment - I hope he reads yours.Jack Golightly_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

*I forgot to mention that perhaps the intelligent agents have the power to create a different universe, just like we have the capabilities to create computer games (or worlds). Or maybe they warped into our own and created life on earth. I know it sounds silly but it's still a possibility . That's why intelligent design does NOTHING to answer the question of who the designer is.ForJah_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

Neil R, Furthermore, the question is irrelevant when we consider that ID proposes design and not a designer necessarily. Dawkins asks the question because he's assuming that design proponents believe the designer is God, and if God is the designer, who designed Him? If he wants to take the religious route, fine, but ID hasn't proposed that route. If he wants to talk about the implications of ID, then fine (as well); we have many arguments in that area that destroy the premise of the question in the first place. The problem with people who propose such questions is that they haven't kept their metaphysical assumptions separate from truly scientific questions. The question is not in itself scientific, but religious. But we can also discuss it from a philosophical perspective with the problem of an infinite regress. It is materialism that has a problem with infinite regresses, not theism. Theism proposes a necessary first cause - based on first principles of reason; that is itself uncaused. We call this first cause God. When we talk about God from a philosophical perspective we don't necessarily need to "personalize" him. However, I believe that philosophical theism offers a grander and more reasonable perspective that God IS personal and ultimately intelligent and eternal. God solves the problem of the infinite regress from which materialism cannot escape; not even with a multiverse. A first cause only need be complex if such a cause is material; but a "material first cause" presents its own problems in that it cannot be eternal.CannuckianYankee_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

to Blue Savannah, "Only something OUTSIDE of ‘the natural’ or nature could be the first cause of it. Ergo, we must look to the SUPERnatural for the first cause…and only GOD (the only being who wasn’t caused) could be the first cause." I completely disagree with that. Why are the rules of nature limited to this universe. What if the term nature can be applied to that which exists outside this universe, it works alongside with the multi-verse theory. Now I myself don't believe the in the multi-verse theory. Think about it in another universe there could be agents way smarter then us...they exist outside of the universe. This is one reason why I don't think the thought of a multi-verse really destroys anything. It just pushes the idea back a bit.ForJah_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

Neil - Though you only made one point, you are wrong on two :) First of all, if it does lead to an infinite regression, that doesn't make it false. If the universe has an infinite past then there is nothing wrong with the regression being infinite. Second, you are wrong in that it necessarily leads to an infinite regression. The assumption is that a designer must be complex. This is not so. It may be, but it is not a necessary property. Since agency is a different causal category altogether, it may be simple even though it has complex effects in material substances. Think of an atom. Even though it is simple, it is complex to model within a computer. That is because there is an "impedance mismatch" between the model of the atom and the atom itself. So, although being very simple, it requires a very complex machine to simulate. Likewise, agency could be simple, yet have complex outcomes in a dissimilar domain (i.e. in its material effects).johnnyb_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Strong argument within the context of CSI.computerist_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

The question "Who designed the designer" is intended as a rhetorical question. An actual answer is not expected. The purpose of raising that question is to show that the argument "It is complex, therefore it must have been designed" will lead to an infinite regression. I don't see that your "demolition" has done anything to avoid that infinite regression problem.Neil Rickert_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

I failed to mention that that which is the beginning in itself, self sufficient and self existent must be naturally excellent for those same reasons and such a entity which must be arrived at logically in any system, puts an end to the search for causes. For everything in the uiverse must have a cause including that which is mentioned as self caused but the difference is one is self caused and self existent and sufficient the others are not. We know of those that are not by experience materially according to laws but we only know of the hidden and more subtle one through the light of intellect which discovers it logically and reasonably just as mathematics are discovered. Therefore one is not smart to ask what is the cause of the Final cause or one is undisciplined and immature and flippant.Michael Servetus_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

Only something OUTSIDE of 'the natural' or nature could be the first cause of it. Ergo, we must look to the SUPERnatural for the first cause...and only GOD (the only being who wasn't caused) could be the first cause.Blue_Savannah_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

I have long held the sentiment that the "who designed the designer argument" was weak and rather childish but I never said anything, not wanting to help in anyway, my opponents. It is similar to asking such an inane question as what's the beginning of the begining, or the end of the end based in a refusal to accept the finality of what is. When you get to the Supreme Being, the Cause of causes there is nothing more to add, that is the very definition of what we are speaking of and looking for and which is also required logically for any rational system. There must be something so defined, which contains all the inherent properties to be so defined by necessity according to natural and material philosophy and science, not to mention theology.Michael Servetus_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Outstanding!arkady967_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

In either case, why do you assume it’s just one Designer?
Because no one ever asks who designed the designers.Mung_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

No need to add entities but I do not deny there could be/ have been multiple designers. Just sayin'Joseph_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

In either case, why do you assume it's just one Designer?rhampton7_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

I like to use Stonehenge, but this is a nice update.bevets_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Who designed the design detector?Mung_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

I remember reading in some books by Fred Hoyle especially his book "Intelligent Universe", if indeed the universe is eternal, then the question about design becomes voidless because nothing designed the designer, life comes from life and it has been going on eternally. Of course Christians won't like this, and neither will the Darwinists.forests_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

I like John Lennox's response to Richard dawkins for the “Who designed the designer” argument, at the 8:30 minute mark in the following video: 'It's the old schoolboy question, 'Who created God?', I'm actually very surprised to find it as a central argument in your book because it assumes that God is created. And I'm not surprised therefore that you call the book "The God Delusion" because created gods are by definition a delusion. And if you say, 'if there is a God you have to ask, 'Who created God?', that means you are reduced to thinking about created gods. Well none of us believe in created gods, and I think that argument is entirely beside the point and perhaps you should put it on your shelf marked celestial teapots, where it belongs." John Lennox - Science Is Impossible Without God - Video Remix Quotes http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6287271/bornagain77_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply