Recently, I’ve started to become rather convinced with Richard Dawkins’ scientific arguments against the existence of a god. However, I think I have discovered a loop hole granted by a variation of the Argument by Design. One of Dawkins main critiques of the Argument by Design is that upon further inspection the biological world actually has flaws or inconsistencies that point to evolution and not intelligent design. To gain an interesting exploration of this critique, I recommend you watch this video of Dawkins dissecting a giraffe.
I find Dawkins’ example of the inefficient laryngeal nerve, that can be traced back through evolution to fish, to be rather convincing that biological design is not perfect. However, I believe that these imperfections can still be allowed by a slight alteration in the Argument by Design. If you haven’t read my post on the Argument by Design I highly recommend it, but to review:
The first premise is that every mechanism has a creator.
The second premise is that nature is machine.
Therefore, nature has a creator.
First of all, I believe the first premise is flawed in that it only allows every mechanism to have a single creator for each. Now I know a lot of people love Steve Jobs and regard him as the creator of the iPod, iPhone, and MacBook. But certainly we know that Apple was never a one man company. To fully create a mechanism like the MacBook several different people were involved from engineers to programmers and market analysts (the list goes on). I don’t not mean to imply though that all mechanisms had multiple creators, some initial inventions were made be a single creator, but most highly complicated mechanisms take many people to create. Therefore I think it is more accurate to say that every mechanism has (a) creator(s).
However, the more you apply the analogy the more it opens up the argument. I also think we know that prototyping goes into creating a mechanism. The plans for the MacBook weren’t created once and never altered. Apple went through several prototypes before they settled on one they were happy with and sent to market. Moreover, after a few years better technology comes out and a whole new line of laptops are released.
So what does this mean for the Argument by Design? I think it means that the creator(s) of our universe could have used Earth as a prototype. I know a lot of people could have issues with this idea because one would have to agree that our creator(s) are not perfect, but in the context of the Argument by Design I believe it remains solid and actually refutes Dawkins’ “evolutionary imperfection” critique of the Argument By Design.
Let me know your thoughts!