ORDER & REgularity
An example of this that is commonly used is the bacterial flagellum. This tiny organism has a whip-like tale that works by a mechanism, that resembles a crank shaft in a man-made vehicle.
The premise that "similar effects have similar causes" makes some scholars conclude that the bacterial flagellum must also be a result of an intelligent designer. The flagellum and the Intelligent Design controversy are described in the section on Language & Issues in Design. |
|
More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human - Michael Behe
The case for the existence of God is a cumulative one - Richard Swinburne
Isolated pieces of evidence may be insufficient on their own to warrant convicting someone ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, but taken together the evidence does warrant conviction - Peter S. Williams
YES
Cumulative experience is the correct way to look at the Design Argument. We're not trying to decide if one particular flower or body organ was designed by God: we're trying to work out if the entire universe is the product of a Designer. This means we should take into account the full weight of evidence in favour of Design, rather than analysing it one piece at a time.
Swinburne's approach to cumulative experience sets a modest target: the existence of the Designer should have a probability greater than 50% (more probable than not). Cumulative experience backs this up. Even if God's existence is only 51% likely, it's more probable than not, so a reasonable person should believe it.
|
NO
Cumulative evidence isn't always persuasive. In a linked hypothesis, the conclusion gets less likely. If eyeballs are 60% likely to be designed and stars are 60% likely to be designed, the probability that God designed both isn't 60%+60%, it's 60%x60% or 36%. (Swinburne answers this, but quickly gets into statistics and the simple point he was making is lost).
This modest, statistical belief in God is a long way from religious faith. No one ever endured being martyred or devoted their life to the poor because they were 51% certain God existed, or thought it "more likely than not" that God had a plan for them. What this sort of argument leads to is really a sort of agnosticism.
|