Theists love affair with design

Looking at the human body, their certainly is the appearance or illusion of design. We have two arms, two legs, and internal organs that have roles which support the existence and well being of the organism in question. Theists will not only point to the order and structure of biological organisms as evidence of design but will also appeal to the complexity of systems within those biological organisms.

A crucial point that theists need to be aware of is that the appearance of design does not equate to the reality of design. So how do we recognize something that is designed? Do we identify design by complexity?

In order to identify design, we need a valid standard or frame of reference. Right now I am holding a clothes hanger in my hand and I know that it was designed. Why? Because I already have knowledge that human beings design clothes hangers. The hanger is not complex, but yet we are able to identify design because such an object is verified to have been created by man and never occurs naturally within the biological world.

What is the standard that Christians use to determine design? As stated above, beauty, complexity, and order. But this is a non-sequitur. There is a gap that the theist has not yet bridged. You have the theist claim of "the human cell is complex and appears designed" to "It is designed". The conclusion does not follow from the premise because it presupposes that the cell could not have formed via natural processes. The theist is working under the presupposition that complexity necessitates design and from this they conclude that the complex cell was designed. It is a circular argument and the argument also commits the argument from ignorance fallacy because the theist is essentially saying that because they know of no natural process that could produce the cell then they assume that it is from design.

Theists need a valid standard to determine that complex systems necessitates a conscious designer. Typically, theists appeal to the complexity of computers and machines and argue that since the cell is far more complex than computers and encyclopedias which are designed then the cell had to have been designed as well. The obvious flaw is that you cannot compare to technological world to the natural biological world. They are in completely different categories. Complex machines which are made of different types of metals cannot be used as a frame of reference when speaking of biological organisms that operate much different than simple metals put together by humans. For instance, organisms are able to reproduce and pass their genetic material, machines cannot.

In order for theist's to prove design they have to either (a) provide a rational argument that necessitates a conscious designer or (b) discount all possible naturalistic explanations. People in the intelligent design movement try to affirm (b) by arguing for irreducible complexity. However, even if we granted the validity of irreducible complexity (though I do not believe for a second that it is valid) then the theist has only succeeded is disproving evolution. Disproving evolution does not validate creationism. You prove creationism by proving creationism, not by disproving evolution. But even with evolution set to the side, there are still a number of naturalistic possibilities that could account for design outside of evolution.

Unless the theist is able to discount all possible naturalistic means for a complex cell to form then they are still arguing in a circle since they have to continually presuppose that there is a conscious designer as opposed to any possible natural means. Since the burden of (b) is not satisfied by the theistic camp then their just left with (a). But as stated earlier, how do we know that complexity requires a designer? What is their standard? What is the frame of reference?

Also, if the theist wishes to use complexity as evidence for design then things such as rocks and simple elements are not designed since they lack complexity. We know that computers, watches, clothes, shoes are designed because of the knowledge that we already have that humans create these things, not because of complexity. If we identified design by complexity then clothes hangers, towels, metal bars, rope, etc, would not be products of design.

It is not sufficient to jump from complexity to design, one must demonstrate that natural law is insufficient. We have sufficient evidence in big bang cosmology and biological evolution, that natural law is sufficient.