Part of a discussion on argument from design.

If the argument from design says the cosmos must be designed, or that it is impossible for it not to be designed, I think there is a sober counterargument (if ultimately unconvincing).

But there is no sober counterargument if the argument is that the…

Theory 1

“the cosmos appears designed because it is”

…explains the appearance of cosmic design better that the…

Theory 2

“the cosmos appears designed because universal human perception invariably reaches wrong conclusions, particularly whenever orderly natural processes unintentionally create the illusion of providence (where providence means harmony between ends chosen and means sought).

“Eyeballs just so happen to aid vision, but were not designed to do so ; wings just so happen to allow flight, but were not designed to do so; squirrels gathering nuts in fall and birds building nests in spring just so happen to be providential for winter famine and spring mating.

“But the providence is an unintentional side effect of non-deliberate non-providential natural process.

“And at the same time, all animal organs and behaviors are incomprehensible unless seen as providential, for there is not a single example of an organ nor animal behavior not fitted harmoniously to its proper aim or end.

“Ergo EVERYTHING in nature seems designed, but nothing is, and NOTHING in nature seems un-designed or random.”

Well, theory 2 is farfetched to the point of comedy whereas theory 1 is intuitive to the point of self evident.

Occam’s razor asks we accept the theory that requires fewer fundamental assumptions.

Logic demands we not accept ad hoc assumptions, that is assumption made as special pleading, created merely to support a jury rigged theory, and for no other reason.

So, no, there is no sober argument to be made supporting the claim that natural processes always produce the illusion of design where no design exists is more elegant or robust than the claim that design exists where design seems to exist until proven otherwise.