Craig Crushes Ayala
|August 15, 2012||Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design|
Ayala gives two objections to design: (1) The design we see is suboptimal; and (2) the cruelty we see in nature precludes an inference to a good designer.
Craig first shows a picture of a dilapidated old East German Trabant, one of the worst cars ever made. He then shows a picture of a shiny new Mercedes E Class.
Then he makes the following argument.
1. The Trabant is obviously designed.
2. The Trabant design is obviously sub-optimal.
3. Therefore, the fact that a design is sub-optimal does not invalidate the design inference.
Conclusion: Known designs exhibit various degrees of optimality. Therefore, there is simply no reason to restrict design inferences only to maximally optimal designs. If a structure meets Dembski’s criteria for inferring design, that inference is not nullified by the mere possibility that the structure could have been better designed.
Craig then shows a picture of a medieval torture device and makes the following argument.
1. The torture device is obviously designed.
2. The designer was obviously not good.
3. Therefore, the possibility that the designer is not good does not preclude a design inference.*
Conclusion: The design inference says absolutely nothing about the moral qualities of the designer.
*Theologians have answers to the “cruelty” objection, but those answers are not within the province of the ID project as such.