e responses to the Dawkins and Sober view, without appealing to a natural selection theory. A way in which this might be done is to show that another explanation for the evidence of design could be even more plausible than God. We may formulate this like so:P1. There are some things, like watches, that can immediately be recognised as the work of an intelligent designer.P2. Watches are recognisable as works of an intelligent designer through nothing more than a strong intuition: one need not have any prior knowledge of watches’ existence.P3. Nature contains complex biological systems.P4. These systems are (strongly) comparable to watches in terms of showing evidence for design.C1. (Hence) It is at least plausible to hold that the world is the product of intelligent design.P5. The best explanation there is for the apparent design in nature is to hold that the world and its creatures are the work of an intelligent designer.P6. The complex biological systems in nature are flawed: they do not operate as efficiently as even some things created by people.P7. These systems are often the cause of pain and suffering in the creatures they pertain to; eg: childbirth. Some of the systems cause pain as a part of their distinct purpose; eg: nervous systems.P8. If the world is the product of intelligent design, these systems were intentionally created.C2. The most rational thing for us to believe given all of this, is that an intelligent designer created the world, and that designer is Satan.One would never claim to hold this argument as acceptable, but it seems at least, if not more, acceptable than Paley’s argument. Therefore, there are not only other possible explanations (if one accepts the premises, of course); there are potentially better ones. Here the obviously weak link between the premises and the conclusion has been exploited; a problem that many theological arguments suffer from – in arriving at the necessa...
