Intelligent Design: Crash Course Philosophy #11


Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you
by Squarespace. Squarespace: share your passion with the world. Over the centuries, the effort to craft a perfect, bullet-proof argument for the existence of God has taken many forms. There was the ontological argument of Anselm. There were the four cosmological arguments of Aquinas. And they still have their supporters. But
many modern philosophers feel that they’re simply too flawed — too inconsistent with our scientific understanding of the universe — to be convincing today. But there was a fifth argument posited by
Thomas Aquinas. And it was popularized several hundred years
after his time — in the late 1700s, by the English Christian philosopher William Paley.
And this argument for God’s existence is still around today, too. In fact, it’s one
of the most popular. It’s known as the teleological argument.
You may know it as Intelligent Design. [Theme Music] To make his case for the existence of God, William Paley gave us what’s known as an argument by analogy. This form of inductive argument invites us
to consider a particular state of affairs — let’s just call it Situation A — about
which we’re already likely to have certain beliefs, and then likens it to Situation B,
with which we are less familiar. The idea is that, in the interest of consistency,
whatever conclusions we’ve drawn about A, we ought to draw about B as well. You can make an argument by analogy about
anything, but Paley used it to talk about God, in what’s known as the Watchmaker Analogy.
He asked us to imagine what we’d think if we found a watch on the ground. Would we imagine that the watch simply appeared randomly, spontaneously, on its own? Or would we see the complexity
of it, and notice that its parts seem to come together in a particular way in order to accomplish
a goal? If so, wouldn’t we think that the watch must have been made by someone, on purpose? Paley was arguing that the teleology demonstrated
by a watch would lead us to conclude that it was designed by an intelligent creator
with a particular end in mind. Teleological means goal-oriented, or purposeful. And we can easily pick out the teleologies
of man-made objects. Got a mug here, as an example — it was created with a particular
teleology in mind. It was designed to hold a liquid without leaking. It’s got a handle
put here deliberately, in such a way that human fingers could easily fit into it. And
its composition is such that it’ll keep the liquid inside warm without burning the
hand that holds it. We wouldn’t assume that a coffee cup would
simply come to be, exhibiting such perfect design for its particular function, without
someone having created it that way on purpose. So, in the same way that the teleology of
a cup implies the existence of a cup maker, and that of a watch implies the existence
of a watchmaker, Paley saw teleology in the world, and assumed from that, God’s existence. He continued his analogy by comparing a watch
to a living organism. Look at the complexity of the human body.
Heart and lungs working together, producing sweat to keep ourselves from overheating,
transforming food into energy – we’re just generally amazing all around.Look at
how elements of the natural world operate according to complex laws that sustain a beautiful,
natural harmony. Paley said this couldn’t possibly just have happened, any more than the design of a pocket watch could just have happened. There must be a designer. If you accept this analogy, then you agree
with Paley that, just like the purposefulness of a watch compels us to believe in a watchmaker,
the purposefulness of the world compels us to believe in a worldmaker – God. And you might think this is a fantastic argument. It might even be what motivates your own belief in God. There are lots of people who say things like sunsets and babies show them that there must be a designer-god. But some of you probably aren’t buying it
– and you know what to do! Arguments are refuted by counterarguments,
so when you want to refute an argument by analogy, you offer a disanalogy. Basically,
you demonstrate that Situation A and Situation B are dissimilar enough that the analogy doesn’t
actually work. So, to object to Paley, we have to identify
a way in which elements of the natural world – like human bodies – are relevantly dissimilar
to watches. When we’re talking about a watch, an objector might say, it obviously had a
creator. After all, we can take it apart and see clearly how the gears fit together to
move the hands and keep time. But there’s so much in the natural world that isn’t
understandable in the same way. For instance, why would God have designed our eyes to have
a blind spot? Paley responded that it doesn’t matter whether
we can understand how something was created. The point is simply that it was. He might
point out, for instance, that I actually don’t understand the inner workings of my phone.
But I still know it had a creator. Whether or not I can understand how it
was created is beside the point. Next objection: Some parts of nature seem
to be without purpose. A blind spot obviously doesn’t have any function, and neither do
nipples on a man. Paley’s response here was: Just because we don’t know there’s a purpose doesn’t mean there isn’t one. But this is a problem, too, because his whole
argument for believing in God is that you should look at the world and see purpose.
So if we see some things in the world that are working great, and really seem to have
complexity and a definite use, and others that don’t, that’s a flaw in his argument. What’s more, the absence of any obvious
purpose in things can lead people to start searching for purposes, and effectively make
them up. For instance, I could find a purpose for this finger – I could use it as a nose-picker.
It would make a good one – it’s just the right size to really get in there and dig around.
But was my finger designed to pick noses? Probably not. 20th century British philosopher
Bertrand Russell made fun of this purpose-finding tendency, by pointing out
that you could look at a bunny and form the belief that God gave it a fuzzy white tail
so hunters would have something to shoot at. The point is: If we’re the ones inventing
purposes, rather than recognizing ones that are inherently there, then we’re the real
creators of purpose in the world, not God. Basically, if you believe that God made eyes
for seeing, then you also have to believe that he designed fingers as nose-pickers,
and rabbit tails as bullseyes, and blind spots as ways for us to get into car accidents.
So the counterargument here is: We don’t get to just pick and choose, and say God designed the stuff we want him to have designed, and not the other stuff. Rather than searching for disanalogies, another
way Paley’s argument has been countered is with an alternative explanation for Condition
B. Paley says bodies are purposeful, and from there concludes that the purpose had to have
been put there by an intelligent creator. But another explanation for how bodies came
to have the complexity and functionality they have today, is natural selection and random
mutation. We can concede that the existence of a designer-god helped make sense of the
origins the our world in a pre-scientific age, but now we have a perfectly good scientific explanation for how the complexity of the world came about. So, who needs a watchmaker when you have evolution
by natural selection? Another objection to Paley’s case came from
18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, who pointed out that, if we’re to take the
analogy seriously, we’d need to conclude that the creator that Paley posits seems to
make a lot of mistakes. And not just blind spots.
Like, how about hurricanes? Or why would he make our bodies with certain
tissues — like in the breast, or prostate, or colon — that are so incredibly prone to
cancer? Why would he make umbilical cords that could wrap around a baby’s neck? Why
would he make butterflies have to wait for hours, immobile, for their wings dry as soon
as they come out of their chrysalis, making them easy prey for predators? Hume pointed out that the world is chock full
of stuff that looks cruel, ridiculous, impractical, and contrary to life. A flawed world, he said,
implies a flawed creator. Now, the development of evolutionary biology
over the past couple hundred years has taken a pretty heavy toll on the teleological argument.
But it still has many supporters, and their method of defending their view is a good model for the way the Socratic method is supposed to work. When your opponents raise objections to your
theory, you need to either reject it, or modify it in a way that responds to those objections.
So, supporters of the teleological argument set out to modify – and strengthen – their
view. Here are a couple of modern responses: Contemporary British philosopher Richard Swinburne
gives us a modern teleological argument with a twist of probability. He says that, even
if there’s another possible explanation for the universe, we should go with the explanation
that’s most likely to be true. And he says that it’s simply more probable that God
designed the world, than that it came about through the pure chance of evolutionary processes. Likewise, another class of modern defenses
of the teleological argument are collectively known as Fine-Tuning Arguments. These arguments
accept the Big Bang and evolution as scientific truths, but they maintain that, for the evolution
of life to occur, it’s most likely that God set up the precise conditions that it required,
rather than them coming about by accident. After all, if Earth were just a little closer
to, or farther from, the sun… If the composition of our atmosphere was slightly
different… If the content of our oceans was something
other than what it is … Life would have never taken root. A lot of people think these modernized arguments
have more going for them than Paley’s did. This is partly because these types of teleologists
have moved from making assertions about certainty to making claims about probability, which
seem easier to get right and to defend. Objectors will counter by saying that the
problem with these arguments is, you can’t really make a probability claim when you only
have a sample set of one. If we had multiple Earths that we could examine, we could see
how likely any particular adaptation is, or how unique the conditions for life are. Then
we would know if it were likely or unlikely to happen without God. But we can’t know
that — at least not now — because we can only access this one world, where we know
that things evolved as they did. Thus, the counterargument goes, Swinburne and other modern teleologists are right to recognize that if things were slightly different, then life maybe wouldn’t have evolved or would have evolved very differently. But that is wholly different from claiming that
it’s unlikely to have happened in the first place. So, today you learned about the teleological
argument, objections to it, and responses to those objections, and the responses to
the responses to the objections. But we’ve spent an awful lot of time talking
about God’s existence, so next time, let’s consider what god is like if it exists. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace.
Squarespace helps to create websites, blogs or online stores for you and your ideas. Websites
look professionally designed regardless of skill level, no coding required. Try Squarespace at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer. Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association
with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel and check out amazing shows like The Art Assignment, The Good Stuff, and Blank on Blank. This episode of Crash Course was filmed in
the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio with the help of all of these amazing people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.

100 comments

  • Mike Potter

    the coded information, digital codes , instructions, languages and a operating system in DNA is all the proof we need

    Reply
  • Not that Bitch Again ?!?

    Yet another counter to this argument.
    We know something has been designed by it's difference from that which occurs in nature.
    Whole a stick simply stuck in the ground can be a sundial and a way to keep time, there are no naturally occurring watches.

    Reply
  • Mouaz Chikhani

    The watchmaker analogy also commits a few logical fallacies. The false comparison fallacy for example; just because two things share a quality, doesn't mean they share another. In this case the two thing are the watch and the universe and the quality they share is complexity. It concludes by saying that the watch and the universe are complex, and a watch has a creator; therefore, the universe must have a creator, this is clearly a false comparison and could be shown to be so by considering various examples such as, a watch is complex, the watch must have a watchmaker, the universe is complex, the universe must have a watchmaker. This sounds ridiculous, but it follows the same line reasoning. Another fallacy is special pleading, that is, to give an unjustified exception in your argument. If everything that's complex requires a more complex creator, then the complex creator must have an even more complex creator. However, when this analogy is made, an unjustified exception is made for God as the ultimate creator.

    Reply
  • nahid khan

    You speak too fast . since we are a native speaker so that we can not understand your voice properly that what you are teaching

    Reply
  • jiaming chen

    Does he feel thirsty? Oh my god

    Reply
  • Lucian Hodoboc

    Does Hank Green believe in God?

    Reply
  • Tyler Tucker

    I do believe in God and that He created things intelligently. I believe because of the great experiences I've had that are undeniable, but the watch argument and similar ideas are helpful too, somewhat. Not as helpful as the feeling of the Holy Ghost.

    I think he's kind of biased. He gives the God argument shortly and cynically and then the other argument in-depth and more of a serious tone.

    Reply
  • Counterexample

    How did this go from "there is a design" to "therefore there had to be a specific purpose for each thing but subjectively we can't find it for so many things therefore there is no purpose then there is no design"… Are you trying enough what you preach about counterarguments?

    Reply
  • Counterexample

    There might be a perfectly good explanation for how the complexity of the world came about (if by that you mean how life became so complex and not the origin of it), but there isn't a perfectly good explanation for how the complexity of concepts and theoretical math came about, since those have not been invented, but discovered.

    Reply
  • Mahmoud Babikir

    In quran it says " we made for everything a reason"

    Reasons don't have to be good reasons.

    Reply
  • Zweihander11

    3:50 We have an appendix. Yes, an organ that is good for nothing.

    Reply
  • netelsg

    If Eve was created by GOD from Adam's rib, was Eve's DNA the same as Adam's DNA…?

    Reply
  • Adam Wilcox

    We already know where watches come from

    Reply
  • Adam Wilcox

    If there is a God, Christianity doesn’t have anything to do with it

    Reply
  • Rex Adebayo

    But we do have multiple earths! Look at all the other planets.

    Reply
  • Rex Adebayo

    I think the bible fills in the gaps here. The human being has a blind spot because God has not finished creating him. This perishable item you call man is not the end product, neither are all the animals for that matter. The book of Job says'' I would await for my renewal to come, you will call and I will answer you, you would yearn for the work of your hands'' the book of Isaiah says ''The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them''. So creation, great as it is, is not finished.

    Reply
  • Hot Dog Man

    So when could we get to talk about St. Thomas' argument?

    Reply
  • Sean Giblin

    @kenthovindofficial destroy this man and his argument please

    Reply
  • reneekatz666

    We don't assume the watch was designed because it was complex, we assume it was designed because we have prior knowledge of where watches come from. Also, this argument assumes a contrast between nature, the backdrop, and the watch, in which nature is relatively 'random,' compared to the complexity and teleology of the watch! Not a good way to go when trying to prove nature is so complex it needed an intelligent being to design it.

    Reply
  • drys d

    The counter argument to the teleological argument is evolution? The theory of evolution has never been proven. Take a look at “Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design” by Stephen C. Meyer

    Reply
  • Carlos Garcia

    Wow! You Very passionate about this one. May be God should've consulted you before, you seem to have better ideas. By the way a lot of thinking for a evoluted pinch of dirt. You know it make perfect sense, according to observation and evidence that there is a higher cause than the Dumb ilusory idea that all is just a happy accident. We don't define anything bro. It is not you idea , Your plan , your purposed you don't have to like it either.
    Crazy to think that the humans are on top of cosmic intelligence my World…*|! Crazy, So silly and arrogant.

    Reply
  • CrixZivion JL

    Good thing I've already watch Saiki kusuo and I'm already trained

    Reply
  • Carlos Garcia

    Weiner Heisenberg the father of Quantum physics Disagrees with you. Albert Einstein disagrees w you. The list is endless.

    Reply
  • Johnny Morris

    The problem of this argument is so easy to see and explain haha

    Reply
  • C Alex

    7:19 that's exactly my point. The earth and life were formed by pure random chances – such a result is a lot more improbable than one under God's influence.

    Reply
  • Youthoob Gamer

    6:36 – A flawed world (creation) doesn't necessarily point to a flawed creator.
    Maybe he just let it be the way it is.
    For eg- I can make a bottle full of water to the brim but I chose not to.

    Reply
  • Youthoob Gamer

    Maybe the God is a very naughty scientist playing games with the universe. But what options do we have? Shouldn't this lead us to believe him?

    Reply
  • Youthoob Gamer

    This leads us to believe his command. But now the question ends with an unlimited theological debate.

    Reply
  • Mj Drush

    Thank you for this easy to understand explanation 😊

    Reply
  • Rob Taylor

    To comrehend intelligent design it shall be best to learn it from the community itself instead of an illuminati shill uttering intellectual mockery.

    Reply
  • G Buz

    Sometimes the purpose of something is trial and error. Hume's argument (and Sam Harris too) that there are a lot of mistakes in nature so there is no intelligence is a short-sighted argument because errors are likely part of the intelligent process.
    Evolution by natural selection and mutation does not explain the origins of species (regardless of Darwin). It is a nice theory, probably partly right but falls short due to missing links and not enough time for the processes. (Not per me but per many mathematicians.) I think necessity is the mother of evolution which means there is intelligence somewhere in the equation.

    Reply
  • JFR Jr

    I would like to know the explanation from Evolutionism for the blind spot in our vision. Why after so long realizing that we have blind spots we didn't yet developed another eye in our back side of our head?
    It would also be very handy to fly. Why didn't we developed wings so we could fly? Darn, only if evolution was right I could have wings and a third eye.

    Reply
  • Keda_P

    Lol, your arguments towards evolution like the blind spot, claiming it has no function is an argument from ignorance. I suggest you study eye anatomy.

    Reply
  • walkergarya

    What is Intelligent Design?
    Simple. Intellectual Fraud, pseudoscience, lies and "Creation
    Science" in a cheap lab coat. What it is not is true, useful, science or
    real.

    Reply
  • David J. Wallace

    6:38, just because the world has problems doesn't mean the creator was flawed, maybe when Adam and Eve came around, the world was flawless, lots of the problems today are problem humans made, others are because of nature encounters, like how it never rained before until The Flood. And then some of the problems we have today are punishments.

    Reply
  • Ian9toes

    The eye blind spot only exists as the eye is designed with cooling in mind.

    One way to design out that blind spot would be to have a second eye so that the blind spot is never actually noticed unless you close one eye.

    Good thing God gave us two eyes.

    Reply
  • michael nichols

    Hmmm. Wonder if this guy is a theist?….said nobody

    Reply
  • mattia stroppolatini

    i mean, god is complex, and by that logic…. we created him. For there can not be something higher than god capable of creating him, therefore his complexity proves his nonexistence(i guess)

    Reply
  • flori

    The finger thing doesn't hold up: eyes ONLY see, so they have an exact purpose. Other things can have multiple purposes and be used for things other than that

    Reply
  • slooob23

    You can't have it both ways, if person A sees design and person B sees flawed design, both fail the test of objectivity because they are subjectively derived observations. Neither prove or disprove a creator God.

    Reply
  • slooob23

    My watch has a label on it, the label serves no functional purpose, therefore my watch was most likely not designed.
    If your watch has nipples, then it definitely wasn't designed, nipples are the acid test.

    Reply
  • Erica Jordan

    What if the purpose Of the world maker was to keep some sort of balance that we don’t know about?

    Reply
  • opeyemi uthman

    Evolution doesn't explain the creation of life, why are Darwinian ideologues always pushing this theory as a concrete fact?

    Reply
  • Guny P. Shirsky

    memorize
    this video as much as possible. it's not going to be here for long

    Reply
  • GDDM sam

    The funny thing about all the theistic arguments is that they have all been debunked. Despite this fact theists still argue them. Then they decry atheists for using the same arguments which already debunked the theists arguments. If you're not going to change your arguments or come up with new ones don't get pissed when someone uses an old argument to, again, debunk your reused argument.

    Reply
  • Hunter9Nine

    here's a counter for the counter argument about the intelligent design, social media like Facebook is intelligent design with some tasks but after experience it was developed, changed, etc so users have contributed in developing this intelligent design's functionality, usage and purpose

    purposeless things are things that we don't have explanation for yet, OR it's genuinely doesn't have a purpose so we can add purpose to it, Or had a purpose before and doesn't have a purpose now so it's gonna be removed.
    OR changing the utility of things to increase efficiency,
    intelligent design doesn't mean it's perfect we are part of the intelligent design and adding to it by our experience and also our design, reality is imperfect, it's an experiment that some can take part in.
    just like social media it's started intelligent design with some tasks but after experience it was developed, changed, etc so users have contributed in developing this intelligent design's functionality, usage and purpose

    Reply
  • Master Pieces

    The day I see a alien is the day I will stop believing in god

    Reply
  • Max Doubt

    Intelligent design is pure baloney. Here's an argument from analogy: The sun emits light. Light bulbs also emit light. The light from light bulbs comes from electricity. So the light from the sun must also be due to electricity, right? Paley was just as wrong.

    Reply
  • Jared Henkle

    My favorite topic from philosophy class.

    Reply
  • Gonzalo Bernal

    Free will….. wireless… hence infinit patience…. plus evolution

    Reply
  • dylan t

    The formation of complex beings (animals, humans) is too great to assume it just happened by nature causes. We are to perfect in our design.
    Randomness chaos did not create life as we know it.

    Reply
  • Michael Grimes

    There are a lot of conclusions drawn as factual…
    Why is "range of vision" substituted with the negative connotated "blind spot"?

    Reply
  • Winfield Newport

    You can only say something is more probable if you do the maths. These people claim god is more probable and never do the maths.
    That is why you can chuck this claim.

    Reply
  • MusiceWoman

    Part of of an imperfect world was not result of an imperfect God. Read Genesis, after sin entered the world, (fall of man) it affected the world. Weeds were created, women then had pain in child birth, man had to work and toil, etc.

    Reply
  • rishab tibon

    God is an individual Supreme Person capable of His own decision. It is beyond our grasp like it is beyond our grasp the workings of our own mind. The world was not meant to be a perfect paradise free of flaws. The world was made like an educational or correctional institution. The flaws was inbuilt for us to learn. We are rebels and wanted to enjoy away from God, so he made this world for that purpose. But, He also erased our knowledge of Him and put us in the illusion that we are our bodies or that we are god. That's why most of us is having this I, Me, Mine attitude.

    Chaos, flaws, diseases, suffering, birth, death are signposts so that we question why is this happening? Who am i? Where did I came from? What's the meaning and purpose of my existence? God, out of His unconditional love, wants us to regain our senses and go back to Him. These flaws are mercy in disguise. We are not our bodies but spirit souls. The body is subject to all worldly suffering, we don't. Have you ever wondered why, despite all the efforts to satisfy our senses, we only get fleeting pleasures? Because satisfying the senses will never satisfy the self. Our inherent, innate nature to love and be loved can only be satisfied if we redirect that to God. This is our real nature and position, not in this world. Everyone serves someone somehow or the other. This servitude tendency is for serving God lovingly.

    Reply
  • TheFhdude

    The so called "perfect explanation" aka evolution still could not explain the origin of complex "software code" aka DNA since we know such complex information and "programming code" can only be originated from an intelligent being. Can "the perfect explanation" please come up with some random process that can produce digital information just like a software code? That would be a good counter argument otherwise, at least for me, I need more faith to believe in the random blind evolution to produce such complex machines and code inside a cell than believing an intelligent being caused that which is analogous to my experience of software code.

    Reply
  • Livingtoblesschannel

    “Too inconsistent with our scientific understanding of the universe”

    Neil Degrass Tyson explains we are 96% stupid when it comes to the cosmology of the universe. So it’s too inconstant with the 4% we “think” we know? But hey evolution must be it right, the Big Bang causing everything to spin around black holes?

    Lol I am only 27 seconds in and I am already like wtf.

    Reply
  • Ian Juarez

    Maybe an intelligent designer intelligently designed us to suffer… Because she feels more powerful watching people in agony. Thank you intelligent designress, for giving me a painful boil in my armpit.

    Reply
  • Stacy Pollock

    This video in no way founder's the Intelligent Design theory, which is NOT the same as Paleys hypothesis.
    Lousy video.

    Reply
  • Stacy Pollock

    P.S. In no way, shape or form, does Intelligent Design make argument "God" created life. It simply argues an intelligence created and blueprinted life.

    Reply
  • Matthew T Fields

    Is this about intelligent design or refuting intelligent design?

    Reply
  • Michael Sayad

    Natural selection working on random mutation is no longer a viable theory. We now know through fossil evidence that Gradualism is not true. Punctuated Equilibrium which is the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little to no change has formed due to this fossil evidence.
    The improbability of life is so high. You did not mention the Universe's fine-tuning constants. These make life on Earth astronomically improbable. Carbon would not have formed if the constants were off by an infinitesimal amount. It really doesn't matter if there are problems that you find in God's design because we don't know his purpose. His purpose wasn't necessarily to create a perfect world. Just because you don't like the design doesn't mean that the designer doesn't exist. Saying that thinking life on earth is designed is like someone thinking that their finger was designed to pick their nose is just being stubborn. There is clearly a pattern to life and this is best explained by an Intelligent Designer.

    Reply
  • Noah Marty

    Why would God make everything perfect? The perfection in creation is based around the flaws. Whilst believing in God as a creator you must also believe in Satan to create imperfections. Because you forget life was perfect. Adam and Eve were immortal. Perfect. Until Satan, a purposefully flawed creator, ruined the perfection in life. Which is still supported by the cosmological arguments. There is a reason for everything, a reason for flaws. This is why God is a perfect creator. But you may argue that God made Satan with the intent of him ruining everything. This is why there is faith. A reason to believe. Because if everything was perfect. Then everyone would believe in God

    Reply
  • opeyemi uthman

    If there's one thing that has fascinated me about humans as a whole it's our arrogance lol. We are the most intelligent being on earth with five senses (just five lol, there are millions of things we can't even sense) and for that reason we fall into the temptation of believing that whatever we don't feel with our senses or understand using our intellect is just not existing. We need to accept our limitations. If God truly exists do we really think we can comprehend his nature? We don't even FULLY UNDERSTAND the nature of small things like subatomic particles in the quantum world and super giant things like black holes. To try to understand God (the hypothetical entity responsible for all that exist) for me, is like trying to explain quantum physics to a monkey. Either we seem to have forgotten that our perception of the world around us is limited and our intellect (and science) is vastly limited or we are simply arrogant to think otherwise.

    Reply
  • Jordan Wirth

    Thanks Hank. Two more thoughts:

    1. Why is there anything at all? Conservation of mass/energy means that without a creator, the universe existed forever in the past. Meaning "infinite". Meaning "mathematical nightmare".

    2. Irreducible complexity argument is worth mentioning. The idea that some bio mechanisms require all their components in order to operate. As opposed to the incremental addition that evolution provides. It deserves some more thought. As a counter-argument, perhaps they evolved a sloppy mechanism with redundant components, but refined and discarded them over time.

    PS. What i like about that last point is that it falls under the umbrella of science, more than philosophy. So someone could actually test it. I dont like how many people assume the words "evolution" and "billion years" magically solves all their problems. We need to prove the mechanism. I am a software engineer. Run a simulation. evolve a bacteria. an ameba. a fruitfly. impress me.

    Reply
  • Jim Beeson

    Well first the God of the bible made everything 'Good ' the hurricanes, man eating animals etc are a result of the fall of man …second if we went a crime scene and there was someone murdered with a gun and we used this type of reasoning we could say that the gun created itself, and the bullets created themselves and loaded themselves into the gun and killed the person. That would be insane. Or that Mt Rushmore was a result of erosion

    Reply
  • Josiah Yahuda

    How then an infinite and uchangable being be sufficiently judged by a finite and an ever changing one?

    Reply
  • Seeing Clearly Ministry

    Your atheist

    Reply
  • Leo M.R

    I really liked the video, but it’s kinda incomplete. I believe that God created the laws of physics, biology and chemistry to rule the universe since the beginning. It was supposed to be a perfect universe, flawless I’m every way; but when sin took place everything changed. I’m a Christian and i believe in evolution and possibly a Big Bang… because those things don’t disprove God in any way. Why couldn’t God use evolution and the Big Bang for His purposes?

    Reply
  • Henry Spragge

    Substitute purpose with final end, and you’ll have a better understanding of Aquinas’ argument. Things have ends based on their nature—an eye is for seeing, not hearing, because of its nature. A man has an intellect made for the truth, and a will made for the good, by his nature. What would render a man going from seeing to dying in order to know truth and goodness, under the “laws” of natural selection? Just some thoughts.

    Reply
  • Isa Ngo

    Too much why this why that why this why that

    Look,

    Freewill comes at a cost/consequent

    Reply
  • Bored Artist

    Define flawed world.

    Reply
  • Vava Voom

    Objection on paley’s
    Darwin’s evolution and adaptation
    Weak analogy
    Anthropomorphism

    Reply
  • Vava Voom

    Swinburne’s argument is a question I guess like why regularities exists—natural law? Wherein science can’t explain nor answer…
    however there’s also an objection (of course)

    Reply
  • Grendorf

    2:20: i really hope this video will feature Ray the Banana man!

    Reply
  • Thean Kotze

    An explanation for everything in the world from a teleological standpoint can be explained by one source, the bible, that includes the accounts of multiple people so it isnt actually one source. But by leaving this out, you leave out the fundemental basis on which the teleological standpoint is based on. Its like saying the big bang and evolution led us here but the whole process of evolving and the formation of the universe and how the big bang happened, is left out of the argument, and using this as a stable counter argument is saying that these theories are comfirmed and that they are flawless facts of science. They are neither flawless nor facts. Using the teleological argument and not using the bible and combating it with the big bang and the evolution theory and all its supposed "facts" isn't a fair fight. By leaving out the bible, the only fair fight to be had is saying God created the universe vs. The universe was suddenly nothing then, boom, there's quadrillions of stars and planets, and monkeys just picked up a rock and suddenly they're a human. A deep dive into the bible will exsplain why everything is the way it is. I'm not preaching, i'm just stating the facts from a theist's point of view but i do support science, i just believe that its just to perfect for it not to be created by a God.

    Reply
  • Rexador

    The purpose for the butterfly not being able to move after coming out of the cocoon is so that the predators can eat them. That is the purpose. Like the umbilical cords wrapping around babies necks. That is the purpose. It might be going out on limb but perhaps the world is better because of these seemingly random happenings. For an easy example, a person could have lived to kill a good person had they not died young from a disease because the human body wasn't made to protect against that disease very well. Its the randomness of it that creates infinite posibilities for why God made it a certain way. Perhaps there are certain specific limitations that humans can't understand.

    Reply
  • Pedro Wirti

    Richard Dawkins' argument on the ultimate 747 really is the nail on the teleological arguments' coffin. I think it should be here in this video

    Reply
  • Bo Gray

    How the world came about…. not WHY the world came about. No scientific explanation for that. Nice try though. Oh and your bias is prima facie!

    Reply
  • King McDonald

    Blindspots have a known purpose such as overstimulation of the eyes and sensory overload. I think the point he is missed about intelligent design. We exist because we work and we work because we exist it is a paradox. However all matter existed in physical lifeless states as the matter collected into stars and planets why then was life created if the physics of the world manifested themselves accordingly. Mainly we are ensconced in a system, on a cosmic level, atomic level, biological level we have limitations and abilities that are defined by "Nature" which is the encompassing structure which defines us. For all intents and purposes nature and the universe is a high power in it's own right. Whether or not their is a deity matters more to the stories being told which were philosophical stories that were more analogy based than literal.

    Reply
  • Kory Kent

    You're rude. there's WAY better videos on intelligent design than this, you're clearly biased. disliked….

    Reply
  • Biswajit Marndi

    I love it!

    Reply
  • Abel Philosophy

    It makes most sense. I believe it . You have to not want to accept the fact

    Reply
  • NickduPlooy

    A simple, perhaps flawed argument: God is the (thing, force) that set the universe and everything in it, including evolution, into motion. Ie. God is what was, before the big bang.

    Reply
  • antibac gel

    "umbelical cord can suffocate babies" Well, everything WAS perfect until man decided to try God's authority. Plus, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and …

    Reply
  • Ahmed Arafat

    If you really believe that your brain is the product of mere chance and not designed to think, how can you trust it?

    Reply
  • Ramy Ramy

    The theory of design and cause & effect makes a good combination that helps us to prove the existence of God .

    Reply
  • illmtoloko

    why do you bother to speak about this subject… it doesn't add at all to you. If you can't see the logic, if you only know superficially there is no point… oh I see, you want to prove your point of view comparing both theories. I understand, but I invite you to watch material that uses better examples and arguments about intelligent design. There is no way a single protein would be created by accident, or in a billions of years, the probability says it would take more time that the age of universe itself. The protein its the base of life as we know it, search about that, search of probabilities of things to happen, don't have only the "millions of years resolve everything" because its not that simple. Well this is my opinion, but I am a person, that believe in intelligent design and evolution, there is the desing, an intelligence cause of all things in universe, but after that things evolve by themselves, but there is a starting point that has to be created, and rules that has to be followed, those are only determined by an intelligence. Just the cause (intelligence), not the maintenance (evolution) of it.

    Reply
  • Ben Atkinson

    blind spot in our eyes? sorry i think u have a vision problem

    Reply
  • Pigdog Pirouet

    Evolution – a perfectly good explanation. 😂😂😂😂😂😂

    Reply
  • d3g3n3r4t3

    Sorry the cell machinery isnt possible from evolution. Maybe some but much is totally useless unless assembled

    Reply
  • TheKantele

    A rapidly delivered word salad may be impressive as a verbal tour de force, but it does little to communicate and convey a serious tone and platform to a topic that deserves a carefully delivered presentation. They say, "less is more". You have demonstrated here that "more is less".

    Reply
  • River Smith

    maybe all the horrible things that exist in the world, the things that cause pain and suffering, the things that make one question the existence of God, exist for the purpose of good. Without darkness, light wouldn't mean anything.

    Reply
  • anas kh

    If we rely on philosophers only then we will never reach certainty because every argument will get refuted by another argument.
    That’s why having a revelation from God is the best way to reach certainty.
    Because God’s words and commands are objectively true just we have to establish the truth of a particular religion. In my case, Islam is my religion which I consider it objectively true.

    Reply
  • Scott Weir

    The fine tuning argument in this video is very dumbed down. The fine tuning argument I believe is one of the or the best evidence for the existence of God. Because there are laws of physics continuous across the universe that allow matter itself to exist let alone life. Many of these are fine tuned to more than 1 in a million. I believe there are 11.

    Reply
  • lithophiliac

    Made me feel stupid. I made it to 1 minute.

    Reply
  • Dazed Maestro

    When I was a kid I also thought evolution proved intelligent design to be wrong but the more I studied biology the more I saw that evolution proved intelligent design:

    Question: Why do we have to survive?

    Response (A): We don't have to survive.

    Response (T): Yes we do, because we have a reproductive system and an impulse to reproduce.

    Response (A): It's a brute fact and thus requires no explanation.

    Response (T): That's intellectual laziness, stating that contingent consequences from contingent things are brute facts is illogical. Not only the Universe is fine-tuned for life but it's in the laws of physics that, when environmental conditions are right, atoms will assemble themselves in the molecules that form DNA + genetic mutations aren't completely random since if they truly were random life would have gone extinct long ago because mutations would have built up and most of mutations are inauspicious and thus because mutations are individual no offspring could have survived after some number of generations. Knowing that, and the fact that we have to survive is evidence that there's a purpose for our survival but the problem is that in an atheistic world-view there's no purpose giver and thus an atheist cannot provide an answer. On the other hand, theists can answer this question saying that God wills it; the theist doesn't have to provide the true explanation as to why we have to survive but simply stating that there's a possible reason the theist shows that atheism has a very limited explanatory power contrary to theism and thus we can confidently conclude that it's very probable that theism is right and atheism is false.

    Reply
  • Koketso Baholo

    Jesus will reveal God to you, just ask him in prayer.

    Reply
  • Abbey Nelson

    I'm learning about this in intro to bio (lmao I don't know why) but thank the heavens you are a life saver. My prof may as well be speaking German

    Reply
  • Matthew Meyer

    So remember the video comparing Science to pseudo science. In science we aren’t supposed to use theory/premises to prove the existence/correctness of a conclusion but rather to disprove. I fear this falls into the category of pseudo science, plus there are many examples of things that could be considered intelligently designed, but happen on accident. There have been plenty of inventions/artworks that were made completely by mistake. Not to mention you can find a perfect fit or use for something that was not its intended design. For example a branch on a tree is designed to hold the leaves that gain the sunlight and rain water, but we can also use the branches to light fires, hold things, and poke aggressive animals in defense (silly but you get the point). I don’t think necessarily this PROVES anything, but I would agree that the specifically intelligent designs of everything in our universe would indicate a rather intelligent creator or a miraculous accident. Either way, I’m a catholic who believes in God, just wouldn’t say necessarily this proves anything from a philosophy standpoint

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *