outline the key arg's of the design arg and select three criticisms of the design arg and show how strong..

Question

you think they are!

Answer 1

Doesn't this question belong in the homework section?

Anyway, here are my three arguments against the Design Theory...

1. God is fake
2. God is fake
3. God is fake

It really doesn't get any simpler than that. (And just in case you're wondering, I do have the education and background to support each of those arguments. Read my profile.)

Answer 2

This is a recycled answer from another question - I'm being environmentally friendly ;-) Hope it's of some interest to you:

===============

To answer that question, we first need to establish the underlying principle, which is this:

How can we distinguish between design and non-design?

It's only possible to answer this question if you accept that there *is* such a distinction in the first place. If you believe that the entire universe and everything in it was designed and created by a designer, then no such distinction can possibly exist, and your original question is simply invalid - We'll never be able to show you that living organisms are non-designed, because you simply won't accept that *anything* non-designed exists at all.

In order to answer your question I'll assume that you accept, at least for the sake of argument, that the universe as a whole is non-designed - That is, that stars and galaxies and rocks and volcanoes and clouds and all other *non-living* features of the universe are non-designed, and that they are the product of unthinking, undirected natural processes, rather than intelligent, purposeful design.

So now we have a basis for the distinction that you're looking for - We have examples of natural, non-living things that are not designed, and we have examples of man-made things which unarguably *are* designed and created by intelligent entities. We need to decide the criteria by which we can deduce whether a thing falls into the designed or non-designed category. One way to do so is to ask whether the thing could reasonably have been formed by the same unthinking, undirected natural processes that we accept are responsible for non-designed things.

Take a chipped lump of flint, for example. It is theoretically possible that the flint could have been rolled around in a stream or fallen down a cliff face in such a way that every flake knocked off it contributed to making a continuous sharp edge all along one side, making it useful for cutting meat, whilst leaving the other side smooth and rounded, making it comfortable to hold in a human hand... but the *probability* of this happening by unthinking, undirected natural processes is so small that we can confidently reject it, and instead conclude that the object was designed and made for a purpose by an intelligent entity - i.e. most likely a palaeolithic or neolithic man.

When we look at living organisms, can we make the same kind of deduction? Can we conclude that natural, unthinking processes couldn't reasonably have resulted in the living organisms we see in the world around us? Well, the more you learn about organic chemistry, and biology in general, the more you will see that we cannot draw this conclusion. We know that complex organic molecules can form naturally, by unthinking natural processes, simply because it is in the nature of atoms and molecules to bond together in these ways with suitable energy input. In the Miller-Urey experiment, it was shown that amino acids form spontaneously in the laboratory from simpler organic molecules when heat and electrical energy are applied. We also know that amino acids are present in interstellar clouds of gas and dust, the result of radiation acting on simple organic molecules in the clouds. We know that once simple living organisms are formed, then descent with modification by means of natural selection (an unthinking natural process) is quite sufficient to result in the huge diversity and complexity of living organisms that we see today, by genetic mutation, duplication events and so on. We know that complex structures and biochemistry can be formed by slow and incremental change over millions of years by these unthinking processes - Change that is not only possible, but inevitable.

So, the reason we can confidently say that living organisms are non-designed is that they are formed by the same unthinking, undirected natural processes that form all other non-designed things in the universe.

Answer 3

I don't argue against the Word of God. We need a Creation Museum in Houston. Glen Rose is a drive from here.

Answer 4

I'll put my faith in the advanced scientific mind of the God Yahweh who created us. No other scientific knowledge needed on our part.