The Argument from Design

Inductive Arguments

In a valid deductive argument, the truth of the premisses guarantees the truth of the conclusion. In a good inductive argument, the truth of the premisses does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion; rather the premisses confirm, or support, or justify the conclusion.

1) Emerald #1 is green.
2) Emerald #2 is green.
.
.
.
n) Emerald #n is green.
_________
Probably,
n+1) All emeralds are green.

A Statement of the Argument

  1. Everything which exhibits design and is such that we know whether it was designed, was, in fact, the product of intelligent design.
  2. The universe exhibits design.
    Probably
  3. The universe was designed.

Compare:

  1. Everything that is a crow and is such that we have been able to tell what color it is black.
  2. The largest crow in the Amazon is a crow.
    Probably
  3. The largest crow in the Amazon is black.

Evaluation:

Consider:

(a) The universe was designed.

Hume gives three reasons why the argument doesn't establish (a).

I. The weaker the analogy the weaker the conclusion, and the analogy between the universe and other things that exhibit design is too weak to support the conclusion (a).

II. A conclusion cannot be transferred from a part to the whole, and our only evidence that the universe exhibits design is based on our examination of only a part of it.

III. No inductive reasoning can establish a conclusion about a unique object, and the universe is unique.

Now consider:

How much support does the argument give to:

Given the premisses of the argument, the denial of {(b), (c), (d), (e), (f)} is at least as likely as {(b), (c), (d), (e), (f)} is; therefore, the premisses of the argument don't confirm or establish {(b), (c), (d), (e), (f)}.

__________________

Last updated August 2008 by Edward Wierenga
Copyright © 2008 Edward Wierenga