11.09.05
Bird’s nest argument by design?
Continuing this morning’s post on Paley, this quote from Science and Theology News (see below):
In his book, Paley describes finding a watch while walking through the country. Paley argued that studying the watch’s interconnected mechanical parts would compel one to assume that an intelligent force designed it.
Substitute ‘bird’s nest’ for watch in this paragraph, and what do you get?
In his book, Paley describes finding a bird’s nest while walking through the country. Paley argued that studying the bird’s nest’s interconnected mechanical parts would compel one to assume that an intelligent force designed it.
This appears to be grounds for another kind of Intelligent Design Movement, in which intelligent designer birds become the Big Bird in The Sky.
Note the ambiguity of ‘designer’ in an avian creature. Does this creature construct a bird’s nest by design? Does a bird have the ‘will’ to design?
Now consider the case of man. How does man differ from a bird, as to ‘will’. Does he differ at all?
Note that we see ‘natural design’ in a bird’s nest, yet we are hardpressed to say this is intelligent design.
In any case, we can’t extend the bird’s nest argument to greater nature, so why could we do so with man?
Science and Theology News on design:
William Paley topped off this reservoir with his 1802 publication of Natural Theology, culminating centuries of design argument based on everything from the properties of water to the engineering of insects. In his book, Paley describes finding a watch while walking through the country. Paley argued that studying the watch’s interconnected mechanical parts would compel one to assume that an intelligent force designed it.
Modern intelligent design theory, or ID, however, takes the concept a step further, stating that science will prove that some aspects of nature are so specific, complex or functional — like the parts of a watch — that they must be the work of a designer.