Refutation: The Argument from Inferred Design

The Argument:

1. Many things that look designed do so because they are designed.
2. From 1, it can reasonably be inferred that everything that looks designed does so because it is designed.
3. The universe looks designed.
4. From 2 and 3, the universe has a desinger.

This is the basic format of the argument. It can be fleshed out in various ways. Here’s one I came across earlier.

Suppose you came upon a deserted island and found “S.O.S.” written in the sand on the beach. You would not think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message. If you found a stone hut on the island with windows, doors, and a fireplace, you would not think a hurricane had piled up the stones that way by chance. You immediately infer a designer when you see design.

There’s a few things wrong with this argument.

First Refutation: Logical Fallacy

1. Some things that look designed do not have a designer.
2. From 1, it is not the case that everything that looks designed has a designer.
3. From 2, the second premise of the argument from inferred design fails.

Snowflakes look like they’re designed – they’re extremely complex. But they are formed merely through the condensation of water vapor at very low temperatures. They have no designer.

Therefore, not everything that looks designed had a designer.

Second Refutation: Objective Evidence

1. Many things that look designed can be observed during the process of their creation processes.
2. Many of those creation proccesses will involve a designer.
3. Many of those creation processes will not involve a designer.
4. From 3, the second premise of the argument from inferred design fails.

We know that buildings have builders because we can go to a construction yard and see the building as it is being constructed.

We know that the letters written on the sand had a writer because we can go to the beach and see people writing in the sand with sticks.

We know that the changes a species makes over time that increases it’s fitness to its environment occur without a designer because we can set up a laboratory environment and observe these changes taking place without a designer. (Reference: Observed Instances of Speciation, Some More Observed Speciation Events)

Therefore, not everything that looks designed had a designer.

Third Refutation: Infinite Improbability

1. Assume the Argument from Inferred Design to be true
2. All designers look designed
3. All designers are more improbable than their designs
4. From 1 and 2, there is an infinte regress that must be terminated
5. From 3 and 4, the termination point of that regress must be infinitely improbable
6. From 5, this termination point would be impossible
7. Therefore, the Argument from Inferred Design must be false.

This one spells it out pretty nicely. Let’s step through it.

My coffee mug looks designed, so it must have had a designer! That designer was a factory production line, which is more improbable than the mug.

A factory production line looks designed, so it must have had a designer! The designer was a team of human beings, which is more improbable than the production line.

Human beings look designed, so they must have had a designer! That designer was God, which is more improbable than humans.

God is the termination point of this regress, because nothing can be more improbable than God becuase God is Infinitely Improbable.

Since God is Infinitely Improbable, He is impossible and does not exist.

Therefore, the original premise of the argument is false.

Alternative Explanation for Apparent Design

1. Things that look designed are improbable
2. From 1, things that look designed must have a cause that make them more probable
3. From the Refutations of the Argument from Inferred Design, the cause of something that looks designed may or may not have been a designer
4. Designers look designed
5. Designers are more improbable than the things they design
6. From 2, 3, 4 and 5, it follows that any chain of designers that design designers must terminate in a cause that is not itself a designer

Things that look designed may or may not have a designer – but designers look designed too. And designers are more improbable than the things they design.

It is possible that a designer can design something that is itself a designer – but if this only increases the improbability the further back you go.

So to solve the problem of the improbability of apparent design, it must be possible for things that look designed to have a cause that is less improbable than themselves. Therefore it must be possible for things that look designed to not have a designer.

It follows that it must be possible for things which are designers not to have a cause that is not itself a designer.

It follows that the ultimate cause of apparent design and designers must itself be less improbable than apparent design and designers.

It follows that the ultimate cause of apparent design and designers cannot have been a designer itself.

If God exists, He must be a desinger.

If God exists, He must be the ultimate cause of apparent design.

From the last three statements, God cannot exist.