William Paley’s Excellent Argument

[note: the author formatted this is a way that did not leave space for a page break. So I am inserting the break at the top — NR]

  1. Paley’s teleological argument is: just as the function and complexity of a watch implies a watch-maker, so likewise the function and complexity of the universe implies the existence of a universe-maker. Paley also addressed a number of possible counterarguments:
    1. Objection: We don’t know who the watchmaker is. Paley: Just because we don’t know who the artist might be, it doesn’t follow that we cannot know that there is one.
    2. Objection: The watch (universe) is not perfect. Paley: Perfection is not required.
    3. Objection: Some parts of the watch (universe) seem to have no function. Paley: We just don’t know those functions yet.
    4. Objection: The watch (re universe) is only one possible form of many possible combinations and so is a chance event. Paley: Life is too complex and organized to be a product of chance.
    5. Objection: There is a law or principle that disposed the watch (re universe) to be in that form. Also, the watch (re the universe) came about as a result of the laws of metallic nature. Paley: The existence of a law presupposes a lawgiver with the power to enforce the law.
    6. Objection: One knows nothing at all about the matter. Paley: Certainly, by seeing the parts of the watch (re the universe), one can know the design.
  2. Hume’s arguments against design:
    1. Objection: “We have no experience of world-making”. Counter-objection: We have no direct experience of many things, yet that never stops us from reasoning our way through problems.
    2. Objection: “The analogy is not good enough. The universe could be argued to be more analogous to something more organic such as a vegetable. But both watch and vegetable are ridiculous analogies”. Counter-objection: By definition, no analogy is perfect. The analogy needs only be good enough to prove the point. And Paley’s analogy is great for that limited scope. Hume’s followers are free to pursue the vegetable analogy if they think it is good enough. And some [unconvincingly] do imagine the universe as “organic”.
    3. Objection: “Even if the argument did give evidence for a designer; it’s not the God of traditional Christian theism”. Counter-objection: Once we establish that the universe is designed, only then we can [optionally] discuss other aspects of this finding.
    4. Objection: “The universe could have been created by random chance but still show evidence of design as the universe is eternal and would have an infinite amount of time to be able to form a universe so complex and ordered as our own”. Counter-objection: Not possible. There is nothing random in the universe that looks indubitably designed. That is why we use non-randomness to search for extraterrestrial life and ancient artefacts.
  3. Other arguments against design:
    1. Darwin: “Evolution (natural selection) is a better explanation”. “There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.” — The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. Counter-objection: “Natural selection” would be an alternative hypothesis to Paley’s if it worked. But it demonstrably doesn’t, so there is not even a point in comparing the two.
    2. Dawkins: “Who designed the designer?” Counter-objection: Once we establish that the universe is designed, only then we can [optionally] discuss other aspects of this finding (see counter-objection to Hume).
    3. Dawkins: “The watch analogy conflates the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves with the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes”. Counter-objection: Paley is aware of the differences between the living and the inert and is not trying to cast life into a watch. Instead he is only demonstrating that they both share the property of being designed. In addition, nothing even “arises”. Instead everything is caused by something else. That’s why we always look for a cause in science.
    4. Objection: “Watches were not created by single inventors, but by people building up their skills in a cumulative fashion over time, each contributing to a watch-making tradition from which any individual watchmaker draws their designs”. Counter-objection: Once we establish that the universe is designed, only then we can [optionally] discuss other aspects of this finding (see counter-objection to Hume).
    5. Objection: In Dover case, the judge ruled that such an inductive argument is not accepted as science because it is unfalsifiable. Counter-objection: Both inductive and deductive reasoning are used in science. Paley’s argument is not inductive as he had his hypothesis formulated well before his argumentation. Finally, Paley’s hypothesis can absolutely be falsified if a random draw can be found to look designed. This is exactly what the “infinite monkey” theorem has tried and failed to do (see counter-objection to Hume).
    6. Objection: Paley confuses descriptive law with prescriptive law (i.e., the fallacy of equivocation). Prescriptive law does imply a lawgiver, and prescriptive laws can be broken (e.g., speed limits, rules of behavior). Descriptive laws do not imply a law-giver, and descriptive laws cannot be broken (one exception disproves the law, e.g., gravity, f = ma.). Counter-objection: Of all the laws with known origin, all (100%) have a lawgiver at the origin. The distinction between descriptive and prescriptive laws is thus arbitrary and unwarranted.
    7. Objection: It is the nature of mind to see relationship. Where one person sees design, another sees randomness. Counter-objection: This ambiguity is present only for very simple cases. But all humans agree that organisms’ structures are clearly not random.
    8. Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Counter-objection: Just a corollary: since organisms indeed appear designed, then they are most likely designed according to Occam’s razor.
  4. In conclusion, Paley is right and his opponents continue to be wrong with not even a plausible alternative hypothesis.

Links:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/paleys-argument-from-design-did-hume-refute-it-and-is-it-an-argument-from-analogy/

https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/paley.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

0

1,308 thoughts on “William Paley’s Excellent Argument

  1. Corneel: You claim “regression to the mean” to be a real-world process that drives population phenotypes to some preordained mean.

    I don’t recall saying regression is a “process”. Do you? Am I off-the-hook then? Cause you’re not on “fitness”.

    Also, do understand your failed theory hangs on “fitness”. Mine doesn’t on ‘regression’. See the difference? Sure you do, but are not happy.

    Corneel: Ach, you forgot your own claims?

    Are you trying to say something? It doesn’t come across. Probably your phone…

    Corneel: I remember that. You posted that piece here, and received remedial statistics lessons from all participants.

    Someone from your crowd knows statistics? Maybe in a parallel universe.

    Corneel: You can have the last word, but .. and let me be absolutely clear about his … YOU DIDN’T WIN!

    Why be such a meanie? 🙁

    0
  2. nonlin wrote, in his OP:

    Typical threshold (p-value) is 0.05 meaning “the outcome observed may be due to randomness with a 5% or less probability”

    It took multiple tries for him to understand that this is wrong. (Check out the comment thread — it’s pretty wild!) Not sure he ever got it, really. This is high school math.
    Pop quiz for nonlin:
    Under what circumstances is P(A|B) ÷ P(B|A) = P(A) ÷ P(B) ?

    0
  3. DNA_Jock: Not sure he ever got it, really.

    Nope, at his own site he still uses more or less the same phrasing:

    Typical threshold (p-value) is 0.05 meaning “if the outcome were due to randomness (null), it would only be observed in 5% or less of trials”

    Nonlin can add statistics to his library of closed books.

    0
  4. Corneel,

    I am cutting the poor guy a break. The current wording [emphasis added]

    Typical threshold (p-value) is 0.05 meaning “if the outcome were due to randomness (null), it would only be observed in 5% or less of trials”. To reject the “randomness” hypothesis, the actual threshold is not critical, as probabilities get extreme quickly. For instance, given a 10 coin toss set, the probability of that set matching a predetermined sequence (this could be the first set sampled) given a fair coin is 0.1%, well below the 5% threshold.

    is at least the right way around, if hopelessly mangled. (I am ignoring, for the moment, his problems with the ‘random’ null.)
    Before we provided remedial stats training, it used to read

    Typical threshold (p-value) is 0.05 meaning “the outcome observed may be due to randomness with a 5% or less probability”. The actual threshold is not critical for ‘order’ tests as probabilities quickly get extreme. For instance, given a 10-bit outcome (10 coin toss set), the probability of that outcome being random yet matching a predetermined sequence is 0.1%, well below the 5% threshold

    which is a double dose of the schoolboy howler.
    I am not sure, however, that he understands the edits that he made. They do, after all, deep-six his whole argument.

    Pop quiz for nonlin:
    Under what circumstances is P(A|B) ÷ P(B|A) = P(A) ÷ P(B) ?

    0
  5. DNA_Jock: I am not sure, however, that he understands the edits that he made. They do, after all, deep-six his whole argument.

    Haha. You always make outlandish claims like this without any backing. And you always have the craziest “examples” that turn out invariably false. “Hit and run” is who you are. Whereas Corneel is the “go crazy when cornered” guy. Now prove me wrong and demonstrate your “deep-six” claim. And what is your “fitness” function btw? And if you can’t articulate one, how is “evolution” even supposed to work theoretically?

    0
  6. Nonlin.org: Now prove me wrong and demonstrate your “deep-six” claim.

    Certainement.
    P(A|B) ≠ P(B|A)
    That was easy.
    You are making claims about P(A|B), based off calculations of P(B|A) …
    Hey, how are you doing with the pop-quiz:
    Under what circumstances is P(A|B) ÷ P(B|A) = P(A) ÷ P(B) ?

    0
  7. DNA_Jock: Certainement.
    P(A|B) ≠ P(B|A)
    That was easy.

    Haha. And where do you think I commented on that equation? Maybe not adding your own crooked “translation” of my statements if possible? Can you try?

    On a related note, there’s a SETI program out there. Say they get a promising message. How do you propose they decide whether or not it came from an intelligent source? You can apply the same to the archaeologist trying to read a new cave or other such site.

    Btw, maybe you rushed and missed my previous inquiry (and the many more before that) into your beloved “fitness” function. Any comments? How about from your dogmatic brothers? No? Nothing yet?

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.