Introduction
Creation is one of the most controversial topics known to man. It leads to various arguments based on science and religious grounds. The existence of a creator is one of the most influential topics under creation. Stephen Jay Gould and David Hume are popular in the philosophy of the religious world for their contributions to the existence of a perfect creator based on the design of the creations. Gould argues against the existence of a perfect creator.
David Hume questions about design being intentionally brought by a perfect creator. Hume goes against the initial assumption taken by arguments in support of intelligent design. He refers to intelligent design as a defective assumption that fails to dwell on the meaning of “design”.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Gould and Hume Arguments
Stephen Jay Gould argues that there is no evidence of perfect design. He concentrates on nature oddities as a way to support his arguments. He sees the world as full of faults and irrelevant things that do not show purpose. He asserts that the oddities present in creation signify poor design and consequently imply a blind or a poor designer. He even goes to the extent of saying that some extreme oddities signify no designer at all. Gould criticizes the design in which the world is made and refutes the idea that it was designed by a perfect creator. He believes that if indeed a perfect creator designed the world then it would be perfect.
Gould compares the world imperfections with mechanical works of engineers where a poorly assembled machine typifies a poor designer. He perceives the world created as a wasteful designer who designs parts without purpose only to reverse after some time. For example, whales’ embryo develops and has a complete set of teeth that disappear later. He criticizes the process of whales’ embryo development as lacking a functionality basis.
Furthermore, it shows “wastefulness” and does not give the reason for the teeth disappearing. Together with his presentation of evidence of an imperfect creator, he shows support to other similar fields of reasoning. Gould believes in the fact that the world would not experience disturbances such as earthquakes, tidal waves, and other imperfections if the creator was as perfect as assumed. He posits that all imperfections in creations suggest the inadequacy of the creator, otherwise everything would be perfect. Gould concludes that the creator does not satisfy the attributes of being the omniscient and omnipotent creator since he designs sub-optimal features.
Gould’s arguments are strong on evidence. However, they are based on assumptions on the intentions of the creator. There is no evidence that the creator wanted to design a perfect world. The abilities of the creator are assumed. The creator may possess the power to create everything perfect, which makes Him a perfect creator, but maybe He did not want to. Gould makes assumptions and ultimately ends up with a contrary opinion.
On the other hand, Hume asserts that “design” reflects intention, purpose, and good functionality. He contradicts Gould by saying that it doesn’t really matter which part of an animal one concentrates on. He argues that no one can show that designing of the creation really happened at any time. He asserts that no evidence is present to show that structures especially in animals, like seagulls, were formulated to perform the functions they perform.
He posits that what appears like the design does not really represent the actual design and intentions. Hume questions the attributes associated with the creator. He does not find a link to what appears as designed with a perfect creator. Hume says that the concepts of people regarding design are so limited that they cannot be applied to create arguments. For example, the world is compared with engineering works, which is completely different from the creation of the world.
Hume posits that referring to the adaptation of animals, as done by supporters of intelligent design, cannot be traced to the designed plan by a perfect creator. Hume’s argument seems logical. However, it faces objections. It is argued that the creator would not intend to create a dysfunctional and wayward world. Therefore, the creator created the universe to his own liking and possesses plans to alter anything he wants. Other fields of reasoning say that the design can only be attributed to the creator. He is the most probable source of the design. As long as one believes there is a creator design that can only be attributed to him, thus he assumes perfection.
Conclusion
Gould and Hume give a good account. They are wrong since they base their arguments on assumptions about the creator. They completely disregard the intentions of the creator. Nobody knows the intentions of the creator, thus it is not in order to label the creator as imperfect.