Q&A: The Physico-Theological Proof: The Argument from Design versus the Argument from Complexity
The Physico-Theological Proof: The Argument from Design versus the Argument from Complexity
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In my understanding, the Rabbi presents the physico-theological proof as follows: it is improbable that a complex thing was formed by a random process (if it was not eternal), in a statistical sense—after all, there are many more possibilities for a complex thing to turn out simple than the reverse. And when the impossible happened, that is apparently a sign that it is not really so impossible; rather, someone planned for it to come out specifically unique and not otherwise.
But this proof is valid only for something that was created and assembled in a unique way all at once. This is what is commonly called the argument from complexity.
My question is whether the same rule also applies to a process that turns something simple into something complex—for example, evolution.
After all, with regard to that we do not have an event space by which to define this question. Is that not so?
Answer
The event space is de facto the full set of possible laws of nature. Or even the smaller subspace consisting of laws of nature like those in our universe but with different values for the constants. That is enough to show that there is no chance whatsoever that our laws came about by accident.
I explained this in an article here on the site, especially in the distinction between an argument within the laws and an argument from outside the laws. See here: