{"id":2398,"date":"2011-10-20T13:26:43","date_gmt":"2011-10-20T17:26:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/community\/exploringourmatrix\/?p=2398"},"modified":"2011-10-20T13:26:43","modified_gmt":"2011-10-20T17:26:43","slug":"hume-giraffes-and-the-argument-for-incompetent-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2011\/10\/hume-giraffes-and-the-argument-for-incompetent-design.html","title":{"rendered":"Hume, Giraffes, and the Argument for Incompetent Design"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

One of the classic philosophical texts that we discuss in my freshman class \u201cFaith, Doubt and Reason\u201d is David Hume\u2019s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion<\/a>\"\"<\/em>. It is noteworthy how, despite changes<\/a> and progress<\/a> in the realm<\/a> of the natural sciences<\/a>, the same sorts<\/em> of arguments \u2013 such as the teleological or design argument \u2013 continue to be used and debated.<\/p>\n

It is noteworthy that, in Hume\u2019s dialogue, the pious character Demea objects to the argument from design on grounds of piety<\/a>. And with good reason. If one allows that one may argue from evidence of design to a designer, then one opens up the possibility of arguing from shortcomings in design to an incompetent designer<\/a>.<\/p>\n

For those living today, the laryngeal nerve provides one great example of a compelling counterargument to Intelligent Design<\/a> \u2013 particularly the route that nerve takes in the giraffe:<\/p>\n