Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    It is difficult to firmly establish design empirically on... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is difficult to firmly establish design empirically on the basis of the types of properties we usually find in nature.

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Gaps in nature would suggest supernatural agency, and some take science to operate under an obligatory exclusion of such (methodological naturalism).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'Established' limitations both on science and on nature can and have been overturned in the past.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The possibility of discovery or postulation of alternative 'natural' means of production would constitute a standing threat to any argument resting in part on a perceived absence of such means.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Paley's design inference proceeds from functional complexity and specified improbability, not merely from gaps in natural explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dembski's explanatory filter identifies design positively via independent specification, making the inference logically prior to any gap-filling attempt.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A positive empirical marker for design (specified complexity) survives naturalistic gap-closing because it doesn't depend on ignorance of causes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The fine-tuning of physical constants constitutes a nomological rather than a contingent gap, since no successor physical theory can render the constants necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Collins and Swinburne argue this resistance to naturalistic closure makes cosmological design inference structurally unlike discredited god-of-the-gaps arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    'Established' limitations both on science and on nature can and have been overtu...A positive empirical marker for design (specified complexity) survives naturalis...Collins and Swinburne argue this resistance to naturalistic closure makes cosmol...Dembski's explanatory filter identifies design positively via independent specif...
    +5 moreShow less
    Gaps in nature would suggest supernatural agency, and some take science to opera...Paley's design inference proceeds from functional complexity and specified impro...The fine-tuning of physical constants constitutes a nomological rather than a co...The possibility of discovery or postulation of alternative 'natural' means of pr...The spotty track record of alleged gaps provides at least a cautionary note.

    Similar

    Evidence of design in nature does not automatically imply gaps in natu...81%There are many inexplicable difficulties in the works of nature74%Biological phenomena are frequently design-like enough that design lan...74%The works of nature are not observably perfect73%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: teleological-arguments
    Several possible snags lurk...
    View source passageHide passage
    Several possible snags lurk. Gaps in nature would, again, suggest supernatural agency, and some take science to operate under an obligatory exclusion of such. This prohibition—commonly known as methodological naturalism—is often claimed (mistakenly, some argue) to be definitive of genuine science.[6] ‘Established’ limitations both on science and on nature can and have been overturned in the past. The possibility of discovery (or postulation) of alternative ‘natural’ means of production would constitute a standing threat to any argument resting in part on a perceived absence of such means. An...
    Extraction notes

    The passage explicitly lists these considerations as complications ("such considerations will complicate attempts to very firmly establish design empirically"), and each premise is directly stated in the source text as a reason supporting that conclusion.

    Validity:

    Confidence: The passage explicitly lists these considerations as complications for establishing design empirically.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit