Here is a simple statement of the Argument From Design:
- Human artifacts display a number of characteristics -- they are law-goverened, purposeful, non-haphazard, and complex.
- The universe seems to be law-goverened, purposeful, non-haphazard, and complex.
- Human artifacts have makers and designers.
- There are no significant and reliant differences between the universe and human artifacts (Aside from size and complexity). This is often left out, but an argument from analogy will not work without this step.
- Therefore, the Universe has a intelligent designer.
- Therefore, there is God.
Here are the usual objections to The Argument From Design:
- The argument claims that there is a strong resemblance between crafted objects and the universe. This may be true, but there are also significant differences. For example, a stone doesn't seem to be 'designed'. For an argument from analogy to work, you must show that there are enough similarities in the areas you can 'see' in order to justify assuming similarities in the areas you cannot 'see'. Seeing as there are both similarities and dissimilarities between a crafted object and the universe, why should we accept that all statements that apply to one will apply to the other?
- It seems very strange to say that 'the universe must be crafted because it looks like it was crafted'. If the universe (that is, everything there is) was crafted, what do we have to compare it too? The word 'crafted' doesn't make much sense unless we have something 'not-crafted' to contrast it with. We must have a 'non-crafted' thing somewhere, or we would not bother to say that anything is crafted. Most people would say that the 'uncrafted' are things like rocks, rivers and planets. (You still might say that plants and animals do seem to be crafted, even if the rocks aren't).
- Back to what Saige said -- If animals and plants seem to be designed because of their complexity, then surely God would seem to be designed -- E's even more complex. The argument from analogy must apply to him equally, unless you can give a relevant difference between him and other complex things. (And if you want to convince other people, you also have to give a reason for believing that this difference exists -- making stuff up ad hoc won't help).
- Even if the universe was designed, that does not prove the existence of the JCI God. Zeus and his family could have done it -- in fact, an argument from analogy would suggest a race of designers, and not an individual. (One human raised in the absence of other humans couldn't design much of anything -- see Feral Children). Most of the biggest and best constructions made by us humans are based on generations of learning and honing skills. The history behind the ability to construct a complex artifact will consist of hundreds of years of trial and error, a multitude of failed attempts, and hundreds of different innovators contributing to the field. (Hume pointed out that there are flaws in the word, flaws of many different sorts; perhaps our world is only a prototype, and the 'gods' will do better next time...)
I am somewhat suspicious of r3ason's counter-argument. It seems to be a fact that the universe is ordered in certain ways, and a fact is a very good thing with which to support your theories. Perhaps what Stephen Hawking wants to point out is that this is an inductive argument, and therefore not a certain proof.