Inferring Causes from Effects Concerning Complexity

The theist argument of ‘complexity of design implies a creator’ is well argued against in David Hume’s ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’. I plan on arguing against it in a similar manner (without thought to evolution, though it would suffice) while borrowing some of his analogies and words.

Concerning the scientific process of determining cause and effect, certain events are observed many times. Similarities of the observances allow us a level of certainty of like events. The less similar an event, the less certain we are, and the more evidence we need. Furthermore, one cannot explain particular effects by particular causes which don’t need explanation themselves.

For example, it can readily be observed how blood flows in humans, and this has been observed many times. Other humans whose blood has not been observed, we can infer with great certainty that blood flows in much the same way because of the likeness of the vessels. It can also be inferred, though weaker so, that blood flows somewhat similar in other animals like frogs and lions, because animals are in some respects similar. Note that this assumption is getting farther from certain. The further we get away from similarity, the weaker the assumption. So if we then go a bit further and assume blood (or sap) flows similarly in plants, it becomes absurd because plants show such little resemblance to humans.

From similar effects we infer similar causes. Each dissimilarity between any two events proportionally decreases the certainty of the causes being similar. What, then, is the similarity between all of existence and that of (allow me to use a common theist example without loss of generality) an eye? Many theists will readily claim that the complexity of the eye could only come about from a creator. Apart from evolution blowing that theory out of the water (see ‘Climbing Mt. Improbable’), from what similar effect can we infer that the eye must have been created?

From here the theist will argue whether I’ve ever seen a house be built without a creator. Certainly the house indeed has a creator (or creators). But how is a house in any way similar to an eye? Indeed, how is anything we’ve experienced or witnessed created in any way similar enough to an eye (or any other proclaimed complexity to bring it back to a general case) that we could say with certainty that by similarity it must have a creator? Much care is to be used to infer. Further, consider, if you will, that anything so complex probably has multiple ‘creators’ and would more likely show a similar cause of multiple creators leading to polytheism… at least it would be more probable to have multiple creators. And so the argument that the universe or existence must have been created cannot be inferred since we have nothing which closely resembles a universe that we have witnessed created.

Even further still, we’ve never witnessed anything being created by a god. Therefore, while you may erroneously claim (see previous paragraph) that a house is complex and has a creator and thus so must an eye, we would only infer that the eye has a creator of similar qualities of the creator of the house. Thus, by theist logic, I would assume that the universe was created by a man or something lesser, not greater.

To continue the argument, those things which are complex have been witnessed to have been created by causes other than a mindful being. A human embryo, being quite complex, is created through generation. A tree sapling, being quite complex, is created through vegetation. Thus, we can similarly infer that complexity to be derived from generation and vegetation along with intelligent creation. Therefore, it would be equally plausible to assume the universe sprung from planting a universal seed or through a cosmic reproductive process. All these suppositions all beg the question “From whence?”

Conclusion: There is nothing like, that humans have witnessed, the creation of the universe from which we can infer a similar cause from a similar effect. Moreover, the existence of a creator derived from complexity (if allowed) could only give the creator those qualities which we have witnessed in creators – namely human or other animal species. This could only undermine the ‘supremeness’ of a deity. Further, we have witnessed other causes of complexity and would need to give equal weight to each in kind. And then comes the ad infinitum argument of from whence?