What are the strengths of the design argument? Comment on some of the criticisms raised against this argument

Major criticisms were raised by Hume in one of his works - Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. In this he made five points against the idea of design qua regularity and design qua purpose.

Firstly he said humans don't have enough knowledge or experience of the universe to draw the conclusion of a designer, we only have experience of stuff we've made and that is not sufficient to draw this conclusion. Even though this A posteriori view may have been true in Hume's day we now have a lot more knowledge so we don't know if we have enough experience, but we do have knowledge of designed things made by other species, e.g. bird nests and beaver dams.

Secondly he said the design argument does not prove the God of classical theism, the universe could be the work of an apprentice God or many lesser Gods. This was a valid point from Hume as the critique appeals to our experience.

Thirdly he made the point that there is no evidence to support the benevolent God of classical theism due to the existence of evil and design faults for example famine, disease and natural disasters. But then people have argued that suffering is there for a reason and its part of 'the test'.

Next he argued that God is too different to us and transcends human understanding and by using the design argument you lesson God as we are finite and God in infinite. This was a fair point as it's hard for a finite being to grasp infinity, but we are rational beings and should try to grasp ungraspable.

Lastly he says that it is not a good analogy as the universe is more like an animal or vegetable than a machine, because it grows of its own accord. A cabbage may be a better analogy, but machines grow too and plants themselves are like machines.

The Epicurean Hypothesis is another criticism of the design argument. The first premise of this syllogism states that at the time of creation, the universe was made up of particles in random motion. This was a state of chaos. It then goes on to say that the universe is eternal, and in this unlimited time-span, natural forces evolved it into an ordered system and this was inevitable given the time available. Thus the universe in the result of random particles coming together rather than a divine designer.

The problem with this argument is where the natural forces did come from in the first place and if order is inevitable in an infinite universe, then so is every other state and why should the universe remain ordered?

Evolution is another point which attempts to disprove God. Darwin provided an alternative explanation for development of life of earth based on the mechanisms of random variations giving plants and animals an advantage in the struggle to survive.

Even though this is a good and valid point Tennant used the Anthropic Principle to show how evolution could be Gods method of producing us.

Richard Dawkins also raised criticisms against the idea of a designer. He argued that natural selection gives the appearance of design, which leads to a mistaken belief in a designer. He wrote a book called 'The Blind Watchmaker' which argued that variations in the world are caused by random mistakes in DNA. He also produced a computer model which showed how intelligent life could evolve naturally.

The problem with his argument is that someone had to write the programme and set the parameters which suggest a designer and experience shows that we can breed features into species by selecting the ones with the desired characteristics and then breeding them over a few generations. It has also been argued that we choose our mate on a genetic basis, which could mean programming.

I conclude that the design argument does not prove the God of Classical Theism but then again the criticisms do not disprove it. If both sides of the argument are examined then it is really down to the person whether they believe that the universe was created by a designer and that designer being God as there are strong points made for and against the argument and neither can be logically false.