Argument from design

From Religions Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:
For more information, see the Atheist Debates video on Argument From Design, Part 1: Order and Purpose.
The eye is an example commonly used to support the argument from design
For more information, see the Crash Course video:

The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument, is an argument for the existence of a divine designer based on instances of order or purpose in nature. The argument has been used since ancient Greece and remains a popular argument. The intelligent design movement is based on this argument. The conclusion only states there is a designer but does not support any particular religion.

Arguments for and against the validity of the argument have been advanced by many philosophers and apologists. David Hume was highly critical of the argument in his seminal book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. William Paley introduced the Watchmaker analogy which is a popular wording of the argument.

A typical argument from design is as follows: [1]

"Some natural systems, especially living systems, contain ingenious solutions for solving technical problems. Human inventors must solve the same physical problems in order to achieve similar results [...] Ingenious biological features were [...] engineered by our wise, benevolent, and powerful Creator. Nature has never been observed inventing these kinds of complex structures, each well-suited to its task, and there is not even a theoretical, realistic step-by-step evolutionary explanation for how they could have developed. Thus, in the same way that we infer a painter from a painting, or an engineer from an engine, we infer a Creator from a creation."

Along similar lines, Thomas Aquinas proposed his "fifth way":

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.[2]"

More informal versions run along the lines of:

"How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It's Amazing!!![3]"

Formal Argument[edit]

There are three formal variants of the argument from design. [4] They are used individually or together in informal statements of the argument.

Deductive version:

  • a1) Objects that are designed by humans are ordered*.
  • a2) The order* in any object originates from an external source.
  • a3) There is no other external source of order* other than a designer,
  • a4) An object X (for instance, an eye or the whole universe) is ordered*.
  • c1) X was designed.
  • c2) Therefore a designer of object X exists.

* or have purpose, complexity, beauty or any other characteristic property of design.

Analogical (inductive) version:

  • a5) Objects that are designed by humans are ordered*.
  • a6) A certain object X (for instance, an eye or the whole universe) is also ordered*.
  • a7) By analogy human objects are similar to object X, and the causes must be the same.
  • c3) X was designed
  • c4) Therefore a designer of object X exists.

There is a third form of the argument which does not rule out other explanations for order, but selects design because it is supposedly the most probable explanation.[4]


Characteristic properties of a designed object[edit]

A watch is a commonly cited example of a designed object

The argument from design depends on a characteristic property that is indicative of design. The characteristic property is either used to assert the similarity of human design to an ordered system or to rule out natural processes forming an ordered system. Aquinas's claim that it is "evident" that things are ordered, without explaining how it came to this conclusion, is not sufficient.

"Can you pretend to show any such similarity between the fabric of a house, and the generation of a universe?[5]"

Vague terminology

The argument from design asserts that human designed objects and natural objects share a property that is characteristic of design. While this characteristic property is usually called "order", "purpose" or "complexity", what these specifically refer to is vague. For instance, Paley does not explicitly state what he means by "the marks of design" in a watch.

Analogy with a single universe

We only have knowledge of our universe. To properly infer the properties of designed universe in general, we need to have experience of multiple universes. If we do not, any specific properties of our universe may have originated from a source other than design. Since we lack knowledge of multiple universes, we cannot infer the similarity between human design and the design of the universe. This is known as the spotlight fallacy.


We can only claim an object is designed for a purpose if we have experience of the design process and designer. To say the universe fulfils as purpose assumes that this specific purpose can be known. This is difficult to establish while avoiding gross anthropocentrism or the assumption of God, which is what the argument intends to establish. How can we say if the universe fulfils an unknown purpose? Ideas of usefulness originate in our minds and are independent of an object's origin. Water is useful for drinking and cleaning but it has existed longer than all life and will probably continue to exist after humans are extinct. Both designed and non-designed objects may be useful in a particular circumstance.

"Even the white tails of rabbits, according to some theologians, have a purpose, namely to make it easier for sportsmen to shoot them."

Bertrand Russell

Purpose is also human invention and we should distinguish the use of something for a purpose with the design for a purpose. We can say a watch's purpose is to tell time. However, they can be utilized as a paper weight, a pendulum, a fashion accessory, etc, in which case the purpose of a watch is changed by our minds. Natural objects are also used for a purpose, such as a cave for shelter but it does not follow that the cave was formed for that purpose.

Many versions of the design argument assume the purpose of a particular object is for the benefit of humans, such as the Fine-tuning argument. Without supporting evidence that an object was designed with this in mind, the claim is arbitrary and anthropocentric.

The universe appears to operate according to physical laws. These laws are formulated as equations that feature several constant values which have no apparent explanation. These constants include the strength of gravity, the density of the universe, etc. If these were slightly different, the universe would appear to be very different than its current state and would likely contain no life (this is the Fine-tuning argument). To say this universe has a purpose, such as to support life, without any evidence is to commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. From this to claim there is a designer is an argument from ignorance. Some commonly used mathematical values have been cited as evidence of design, such as the golden ratio, but these are subject to the same objections.

Is there any object that was not designed?

Creationists generally assert that everything in the universe was designed. It is therefore impossible to establish a distinction between designed and non-designed objects, because there are no non-designed objects for us to experience! Therefore creationism is incompatible with the argument from design.

In the Watchmaker analogy, Paley claims a rock might have always existed but a watch was definitely created. The characteristic property of design implicitly suggested is the watch is not naturally occurring and is therefore designed. However, he also argues the universe, including the rock, was designed. This destroys the "naturally occurring" vs. "not naturally occurring" distinction he first established.


Beauty is a subjective human invention and does not reliably indicate the origin of anything. What constitutes beautiful varies from person to person, which prevents general agreement on any particular evidence to support the argument. Without having an objective standard, it is difficult to establish which examples support the argument from design. The universe contains a mixture of beauty and ugliness, which makes the conclusion ambiguous.


Main Article: Apophenia

Humans tend to see apparently meaningful patterns even when they are not really present. [6] This bias makes alleged supposed patterns, such as "order" or "purpose" in the universe, very questionable unless they can be rigorously defined and evaluated.

Specified complexity

There are various definitions of specified complexity. Based on the general concept, William Dembski adapted the idea into a mathematical system loosely related to information theory. In this context, complexity implies the low probability of an object to occur by random sampling of possibilities. [7] Specified generally means "a significant, subjective [8] outcome". Specified complexity has been widely criticised for its inconsistent use of terminology, unique jargon, irrelevance and questionable validity [9] [10]. The concept assumes random sampling of possible configurations but this is of questionable relevance to natural processes which tend to vary progressively. Specified complexity is a subjective measure, which is liable to the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and anthropocentrism.

Irreducible complexity

Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity. He defines it as the property of being "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". [11] Some human designs do not meet this criteria, such as redundant systems. The criteria of "cease functioning" assumes there is a purpose to the system, which is a subjective concept liable to anthropocentrism.

Does design generally have the alleged characteristic?

The argument from design claims that intelligence (such as a human mind) can provide an example of how the principle of design actually occurs. However, a designing intelligence on an alien world might operate quite differently. If we arbitrarily use human design as the model for design in general, that is assuming anthropomorphism without any evidence. This is known as the spotlight fallacy. An alien planet may have design manifested without the alleged characteristic design as seen on Earth.

We don't know the intention of the designer

Arguing that an object is design is difficult when we don't know the intention of the designer. This also is a counter argument to the argument from poor design.

"in order to say that something is sub-optimal, you must know what the objectives or purpose of the designer are. If Gould doesn’t know what the designer intended, then he can’t say the design falls short of those intentions[12]"

Direct experience of a designer

We know a watch has a designer from experience. Direct knowledge of the watchmaker and the process of watch-making is an certain indication of the origin of order in a watch. However, we do not have direct experience of the design process that planned the universe. Attempting to infer a cosmic designer without having a way to investigate the cosmic design process is unreliable.

"Well adapted" as a property of design

Many apologists argue that humans are well adapted to the environment they live in, and that the environment is very suitable for supporting human life. This alleged property of design is very vague and does not rule out the adaptation being naturally occurring or being non-contingent.

". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, `This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"

— As quoted in Richard Dawkins's Eulogy for Douglas Adams

If a design is not contingent, the "designer" didn't have any choice in the design, which rules it out being a design. A property that indicates design should exclude things that are non-contingent or naturally occurring to be useful.

Ruling out natural processes[edit]

The claim that any specified object cannot naturally occur is hard to establish with any certainty, unless we have direct experience of its design and manufacture. This is required for the deductive version of the argument from design.

The system could not have occurred by chance

Chance is sometimes discounted as the 747 Junkyard argument. However, to consider a system could have arisen either through chance or design is a false dilemma. Other processes may have been responsible. Chance or accidents are rarely, if ever, used as the entire explanation of an ordered system. Equating evolution with chance is a straw man argument, since it neglects the natural selection component of the theory.

The universe is obviously designed

"Design implies Designer [13]"
"would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe? [14]"
"[This argument] is taken from the governance of the world.[15]"
"All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed.[16]"

This considers design as an premise. This cannot be used in the design argument without begging the question (i.e. assuming the conclusion in the assumptions of an argument) since design implies a designer by definition.

Natural processes could not have done it

Unless evidence is presented why a naturalistic explanation is insufficient, this is an argument from ignorance. It is difficult to imagine what evidence could establish the conclusion that "natural processes could not have done it". If a naturally occurring system is ordered and there is no possible explanation from natural processes, this would be very curious. If there is no explanation for phenomena at this time, it may simply be we are not smart enough to discover it and future discoveries may change the situation. Because of this, science assumes every phenomena is explainable in terms of natural processes (i.e. materialism). To assert a phenomena is beyond explanation by natural processes at all is unscientific by definition. Arguments that are based on unexplainablity of phenomena are an argument from ignorance. The conclusion is on a most uncertain footing, which changes with new observations and each new scientific discoveries (God of the gaps).


Many versions of the design argument use living things as examples that have no explanation. However, Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection showed complexity of life could evolve over long time spans. Like the case of the origin of species, it is likely that many future observations will be inexplicable in an earlier time, only to be explained later.


It is possible that the physical constants do not vary independently and there is some process that determines what they are, although we are not smart enough to discover it. It is possible that the universe has no purpose, or it is based on a completely different purpose such as black hole production.[17]


May examples of beauty such as flowers can be explained by natural selection.

Irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity is problematic as a measure of design because some natural structures exhibit irreducible complexity (such as a sea or wind arch). The earth has a solid core, which if "removed" would break the Earth's magnetic field which has the "function" of shielding us. The moon stabilises the spin of the Earth, and if removed, would break the spin axis of the Earth which has the "function" of regulating the seasons. The solar system contains the sun but if this were removed, it would break the solar system's "function" of giving the Earth a stable environment. Based on these examples, irreducible complexity naturally occurs and is an invalid indicator of design.

The idea of a "system" being "broken" is open to interpretation and tends to introduce anthropocentrism. Irreducible complexity ignores the possibility of a system being make useless for its original purpose but make more suitable for an alternative purpose. The is false to assume a biological system has a fixed purpose over its evolution.

Certain structures, such as the flagellar of cells, is supposedly irreducibly complex. [18] These examples are explainable by evolution because it acts by addition, removal, modification and re-purposing. To claim irreducible complexity can never arise from natural processes is to assume all natural processes are additive, which is false.

Specified complexity

William Dembski claims that many biological objects have specified complexity and do not occur naturally because of their improbability. The improbability of complexity claimed by Dembski ignores the possibility of gradual accumulation of complexity and he only considers randomly formed systems. Charles Darwin observed that biological changes can incrementally accrue over many generations and invalidates specified complexity as an indicator of design.

Multiple sources of order

The deductive argument claims either natural processes or design is the origin of order. However, this is a false dilemma: it is possible that both intelligent and natural processes were involved. If intelligence was involved, it may have played a small or negligible role. Perhaps the "designer" had very little choice in the design of the universe, constrained by unknown limitations. In that case, the design choices would not be contingent but rather forced to take the observed parameters.

Dissimilarity leads to a weak analogy[edit]

The analogical version of the argument from design depends on the similarity between objects being compared. A strong analogy between two objects that share many properties can result in a relatively reliable conclusion. However, analogies between objects that are drastically different only results in a guess or conjecture with very little certainty. These objections do not apply to the deductive version.

Difference in scale

Human design operates on relatively small objects in a relatively small time using limited materials and skill. The design argument is often applied to all life or the entire universe, both of which are vast, ancient and mind boggling in scope. Such a creator would require vast resources, knowledge and skill, making it quite unlike a human.

"It is still more unreasonable to form our idea of so unlimited a cause from our experience of the narrow productions of human design and invention. [5]"

The design analogy compares the entire process of human design to the current and known states of the universe. However, we do not know enough about the early universe to compare the cosmic design process to human designing.

Creation from ex nihilo nothing

Humans design based on available resources while situated inside the universe. To create the universe from ex nihilo nothing while situated outside the universe and using unknown materials (as creationists assert) would likely require a very different designer and a very different design process.

According to Genesis 1:1-10 Bible-icon.png, God started with pre-existing materials and "created" by separating materials into various groups: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep". Therefore, God did not create ex nihilo.[19]

God says he is unlike anything else

God says he is unlike anything else Surah 42:11 Bible-icon.png Isaiah 40:25 Bible-icon.png, so any anology is going to be weak.

Sources of order[edit]

The deductive argument from design asserts that order (or any of the other alleged characteristic properties from design) came a finite set of possible sources. The sources are then eliminated until only design remains as an explanation. However, it is difficult to comprehensively list all possible sources, leading to a false dilemma, where the actual origin of order is ignored.

Chance by random sampling

Many versions of the argument from design, such as intelligent design, are false dilemmas between design and chance. In this context, chance means randomly assembled systems. Each attempted random system is independent of previous attempts (a process known as random sampling). However, no natural process is known to work in this fashion. The universe progressively changes with each state is a progression from the previous state. To compare natural processes to pure chance, as in the 747 Junkyard argument, is a straw man.

Natural processes

The design argument assumes that systems cannot self-organise. This is arguably false given the examples of evolution, crystal growth, planetary formation, ideas in a human mind (e.g. into a design), thermal convection patterns and in many other naturally occurring examples [20]. As mentioned previously, the 747 Junkyard argument is a straw man objection because it does not realistically consider how natural processes operate.


There may be universes other than our own. The collection of universes is called the multiverse. An designer is not required as an explanation if all possible universes exist. This would explain the alleged "fine tuning" of our universe: we exist in a universe that supports life (anthropic principle) but there exist other lifeless universes.

Indirect detection of primordial gravitational waves is evidence that the multiverse exists. [21] It is possible that the laws of physics in the other universes differ from our own universe. It is also possible that order in the universe was imported from the multiverse by inter-universe interactions.

Reproduction, similar to life

A living thing is a system that often seen to create another ordered system by reproduction. This process is more commonly seen than examples of design. Since order can originate from reproduction, the universe could also be the offspring of a similar universe. A theory of a reproducing universe was proposed by Lee Smolin and called cosmological natural selection or fecund universes. It speculates each universe produces other offspring universes with similar but not identical physical laws.

Also, we see intelligence arise from reproduction but we never see reproduction arise from human intelligence. Therefore, intelligence less likely than reproduction to be the ultimate source of order.

Instinct and non-brain based construction

Many animals instinctively construct systems such as a spider weaving a web. Therefore, order can also originate from instinct and not only rational thought. Also the web is created using dedicated organs (spinnerets), so a ordered system may originate from an organ other the brain.


An intelligent designer is a popular explanation for order in nature because it is appealing to human vanity, patternicity, over-sensitive agent detection and our tendency towards anthropomorphism.

Innate self-ordering property

It is often asserted that God is a self organising system. If it is possible that God is self organising (or necessarily existent), it is also possible that the universe also has this property and therefore does not require an external cause of order. The existence and properties of the universe may have been determined by some unknown physical constraints, implying the "design" of the universe was non-contingent.

Eternal order

The universe may have pre-existed the big bang in some form and order may have always existed. Considering entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, there would have to be an (as yet unknown) mechanism to reset or replenish this from time to time.

Chance, given infinite time

The 747 Junkyard argument claims that it would take an extremely long time for a complex system to form by chance. Our universe may have existed for an infinite time in many different forms and pre-date the apparent beginning of the big bang. A constantly changing system which is limited to finite states would very likely result in an ordered system, perhaps with the order limited to a local area, without any outside intervention. Various models of cosmology are compatible with this conjecture, including an oscillatory universe. However, this theory has become more problematic with the discovery of the accelerating universe which implies no limit for the maximum age of our universe.

Chance, if order emerges and self-propogates for infinity

Given a universe which is ancient (i.e. far older than the big bang suggest but not necessarily infinity old), it is possible for local order to spontaneously arise. This local order may self-propogate and maintain itself in its environment for an infinite time into the future. This does not require outside intervention. This is similar to the idea of ordered life arising from non-living materials (abiogenesis), which continues to self-propogate.

Oscillatory order and chaos

The universe may have the innate property of oscillating between order and chaos. It may eventually settle into one of these states or an intermediate state. This may explain the currently observed mixture of order and chaos. Entropy may increase for a time (described by the current model of thermodynamics) and than decrease (by an unknown process), which would maintain a mixture of order and disorder.

Unknown principles

It is possible that time came into existence at the moment of the big bang. For that reason, it may be meaningless to ask for a causal explanation for order in the universe because it is meaningless to ask when came "before the big bang". However, there may be a non-causal explanation.

We have imperfectly investigated part of the universe in the latter part of it's life (after the first fraction of a second after the big bang). Some processes have been discovered that only operated in earlier times, such as cosmic inflation. What other processes might operate in the early universe that are unknown to us? There is still great uncertainty about the physics of the grand unification epoch, which ended approximately 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang. Until we can simulate this environment or observe these phenomena, we cannot discount the possibility order was formed by natural processes in the early universe.

What caused the designer?[edit]

Based on the need for a cause of order, the argument from design concludes that a designer exists. This designer requires an explanation as much as the original order.

We may think this question is beyond our comprehension, or irrelevant since we have already established the existence of the designer. However, we may then consider the cause of order in the universe to be beyond our comprehension or not requiring an answer. It is a case of special pleading to ask for a cause in one case (order in the universe) and to not in the other (the designer).

The designer of the universe may be the product of design of a superior agent, and so on to infinity. This is called an infinite regress and is generally considered to be so absurd as to rule out the argument entirely. This possibility is difficult to discount by argument; the argument of an uncaused cause is similar in this respect. One approach is to assert that the designer does not require a cause or designer (this tactic is also used in the Kalam argument). Since this "non-caused", necessarily existent property is arbitrarily granted to the designer and the universe is arbitrarily assumed not to have this property, this argument is a form of special pleading.

To claim the designer does not require a cause because it is necessarily existent is also begging the question. The term necessarily existent only means "to not require a cause".

It is also possible that the designer came from natural processes (such as alien, non-divine designers), or the offspring from a pre-existing deity. We observe intelligence arises from reproduction but never the other way around.

Absurd implications of design argument[edit]

If the argument from design is accepted, it suggests conclusions that would be rejected by most theists.

Anthropomorphic implications of the argument

The analogical argument from design asserts the similarity between the ability of humans and God to design. This raises the issue of what other properties are shared between humans and God based on the alleged similarity.

When we experience a human intelligence, it is always accompanied with a human body, as well as other phenomena that co-occur with a mind. We would therefore expect a intelligent designer to have accompanying human attributes. This type of objection applies to all versions of the argument from design.

Given these points, it is likely that God has a physical body. Possibly the body of God is the universe itself, similar to the concept of Pantheism. Also, all designers we have experienced have a gender, a family, different phases of life, an eventual death, therefore God (or the Gods) also has these attributes.

Analogical difficulties

The analogical design argument states that, since the design of order is so complex, the designer must be proportioned to the scale of the work. God therefore exceeds humans in power. However, the analogy brings with it some less flattering implications. The universe and the phenomena are finite, therefore the designer of the universe is finite. An infinite god can never be demonstrated from finite phenomena. Immanuel Kant criticised all the physico-theological arguments, including the argument from design, saying:

"The transcendental idea of a necessary and all-sufficient being is so immeasurably great, so high above all that is empirical, which is always conditioned, that we hope in vain to find materials in the sphere of experience sufficiently ample for our conception, and in vain seek the unconditioned among things that are conditioned, while examples, nay, even guidance is denied us by the laws of empirical synthesis. [...] This proof can at most, therefore, demonstrate the existence of an architect of the world, whose efforts are limited by the capabilities of the material with which he works, but not of a creator of the world [22]"

Argument from poor design

If the designer created the entire universe, we may assign praise and blame depending on the quality of the work. This is called the argument from poor design. The universe is filled with examples of poor and good design, needless suffering, natural disasters, uninhabitable areas of the Earth and the universe, both good and evil actions. Species often have vestigial organs and are prone to birth defects. Humans sometimes have wisdom teeth which do not fit into their jaw. The genetic information in all life contains a significant amount of junk DNA. Clearly, humans are not optimally designed. Therefore, the designer has either:

  • both good and evil attributes (similar to manichaeism or polytheism), or
  • is finite and somewhat incompetent, or
  • is amoral (i.e. without morals)

To assert that God is entirely good and all powerful encounters the problem of evil: why does a supposedly good, powerful God not intervene and prevent evil? Evil exists and we must assign a cause; the argument from design implies God created good and evil.

"If we used [the universe] as our only clue, then I think we should have to conclude that He was a great artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place), but also that He is quite merciless and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place)."

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Apologists may argue that sub-optimal design is still design and therefore evidence.

"sub-optimal design doesn’t mean there’s no design. In other words, even if you grant that something is not designed optimally, that doesn’t mean it’s not designed at all. Your car isn’t designed optimally, yet it’s still designed-it certainly wasn’t put together by natural laws.[12]"

However, this evidence implies an incompetent God, which usually disproves their particular theistic view.

Commonality in design implies a finite God

There are certain biological structures that are common to many species, such as the structure of the eye, or having four limbs, or having a back bone. An infinitely powerful designer who aimed to produce an optimal design for each species would tend to produce a unique solution for each problem and not reuse the same design repeatedly.

"The oft-repeated claim of the antievolutionists that "intelligent causes can generate identical patterns independently" provides no basis whatsoever for understanding why God would reuse the same genetic instructions in different organisms.[23]"
"We can argue that the similarities are actually evidence for a common Designer. Why wouldn’t God create living things using similar principles? After all, an artist or builder will often create different works with a similar design.[24]"
"An intelligent cause may reuse or redeploy the same module in different systems, without there necessarily being any material or physical connection between those systems. Even more simply, intelligent causes can generate identical patterns independently.[25]"

Reusing the same design is only beneficial to save resources, which an infinite God would not need to do.

Comparison with humans degrades God

David Hume argued, probably with some irony, that:

"I was from the beginning scandalised, I must own, with this resemblance, which is asserted, between the Deity and human creatures; and must conceive it to imply such a degradation of the Supreme Being as no sound Theist could endure. [5]"

Design as a explanation[edit]

The argument from design does not necessarily support a divine designer or any particular religion. The argument from design has been used by multiple religions to argue for the existence of God and is therefore a broken compass argument. A confirmation of one monotheistic God would rule out the existent any other God or Gods. Even if we assume the designer is divine, we do not know which God was responsible for the design.

To explain order the universe that may not have arisen "by chance" by positing an God that is even more improbable to occur by chance is absurd (due to God's higher complexity in his infinite knowledge). Richard Dawkins called God the "Ultimate 747" in an attempt to subvert the 747 Junkyard argument. Some believers counter this by asserting divine simplicity, although that seems incompatible with a knowledgeable God that is capable of design.

What is the designer like?

The explanation of a designer has limited explanatory value. The deductive argument from design establishes no properties of the designer and gives us no insight into the design process. The analogical version weakly suggests the designer is somewhat like a human designer but the extent of that cannot be verified. Without further evidence and many possible types of designer, we cannot confidently assert that the designer is divine.

A designer candidate of life on Earth is non-divine, extraterrestrial aliens. This has been widely discussed and depicted in fiction but there is little evidence to support or rule out this possibility.

The entire universe may be a simulated reality that exists in a vast computer and created by a non-divine entity. This possibility has been considered by physicists [26] and has often been featured in fiction, such as in the novels by Douglas Adams and the sci-fi movie series "The Matrix".

If there is a designer, our universe may have been one of many universes that were designed but there were many botched designs and failed universes before the current design was found. In that case, the designer is not worthy of much admiration. Along similar lines, the universe could be:

  • the product of an infant or subordinate God which he then abandoned, being ashamed of it,
  • the work of an ancient God who has since died and the universe had continued without further intervention.

For large projects, humans usually attempt to work in teams. Therefore it is likely that a vast project such as the design of the universe would require multiple designers. This is more likely than a single creator, since we have no experience of a single entity that is powerful enough to undertake the entire work. This idea is accepted by many polytheistic religions.

Atheists believe in an alien designer

"Why do evolutionists/secularists/humanists/non-God believing people reject the idea of their being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terestrial [sic] sources?[27]"

It is not that atheists believe aliens created life (in fact hardly any do), but that this explanation is at least as valid as the hypothesis that God created life. For this reason, theists may not use an argument from ignorance to explain apparent order in the universe.

Related Arguments[edit]


  1. Institute for Creation Research, God’s Design Is an Engineering Wonder [1]
  2. [2]
  3. Matt Stopera, 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution, Buzzfeed, February 5, 2014
  4. 4.0 4.1 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Teleological Arguments for God's Existence, published Jun 10, 2005; revised Oct 3, 2010.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
  6. Michael Shermer, "Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless Noise", Scientific American, Dec 2008.
  7. William A. Dembski, "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence", 2002, p. 111
  8. William A. Dembski, "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence", 2002, p. 66
  9. "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism", edited by Matt Young, Taner Edis, 2004
  10. Thomas D. Schneider, Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information", Updated 2008 Dec 01 [3]
  11. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe, 1996, quoted in Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe (retrieved 8 January 2006)
  12. 12.0 12.1 I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist
  13. [4]
  14. [5]
  15. [6]
  16. [7]
  17. [8]
  18. Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic Bacteria," in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece (2004). [9]
  19. Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, 2014
  20. Wikipedia, Self-organization [10]
  21. Lisa Grossman, Multiverse gets real with glimpse of big bang ripples, New Scientist, 18 March 2014 [11]
  22. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason [12]
  23. Karl W. Giberson, Saving the Original Sinner: How Christians Have Used the Bible's First Man to Oppress, Inspire, and Make Sense of the World, 2016
  24. [13]
  25. Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells, "Homology in Biology," in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, pg. 316
  26. New York Times, Is the Universe a Simulation?, Feb 14, 2014 [14]
  27. Matt Stopera, 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution, Buzzfeed, February 5, 2014

v · d Arguments for the existence of god
Anthropic arguments   Anthropic principle · Natural-law argument
Arguments for belief   Pascal's Wager · Argument from faith · Just hit your knees
Christological arguments   Argument from scriptural miracles · Would someone die for a lie? · Liar, Lunatic or Lord
Cosmological arguments   Argument from aesthetic experience · Argument from contingency · Cosmological argument · Fine-tuning argument · Kalam · Leibniz cosmological argument · Principle of sufficient reason · Unmoved mover · Why is there something rather than nothing?
Majority arguments   Argument from admired religious scientists
Moral arguments   Argument from justice · Divine command theory
Ontological argument   Argument from degree · Argument from desire · Origin of the idea of God
Dogmatic arguments   Argument from divine sense · Argument from uniqueness
Teleological arguments   Argument from design · Banana argument · 747 Junkyard argument · Laminin argument · Argument from natural disasters
Testimonial arguments   Argument from observed miracles · Personal experience · Argument from consciousness · Emotional pleas · Efficacy of prayer
Transcendental arguments   God created numbers · Argument from the meaning of life
Scriptural arguments   Scriptural inerrancy · Scriptural scientific foreknowledge · Scriptural codes