What do you think?
Rate this book
The Engineer's Argument: A philosophical argument against intelligent design
We turn to science when we seek observable answers. There, in science, we see the universe quantified and summed up as best we can observe it. Our powers of basic observation, i.e., what we think of as our tactile senses, many times are simply not well adapted enough to give us sufficient answers. Consequently, we build tools to aid our senses in allowing ourselves to look deeper into the fabric of the universe.
41 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 21, 2018
About the author
Casper Rigsby
31 books23 followersCasper Rigsby is a 34 year old husband and father. He is the author of the bestselling title The Bible in a Nutshell, a prominent blogger at Atheist Republic, and a very vocal advocate for out of the closet atheism. His works seek to address fundamentalism at its roots through theological and philosophical discourse, which is also highly irreverent and often even blasphemous. His straight-forward and blunt approach can be abrasive to some and refreshing to others.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 27, 2024
COMPACT ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE NOTION OF A “DESIGNER” OF THE UNIVERSE
Casper Rigsby begins this 2015 booklet with “A Brief Introduction to Philosophy.” But later, he explains, “My argument against intelligent design is simple, really. I want to lay it out in a straightforward manner and then address each point in greater detail.” His conclusion is, “The universe could not have been intentionally designed with a purpose by a supernatural agent because it lacks the efficiency that such an agent would be able to confer upon it.” (Pg. 14)
He says of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy), “if a being has infinite power even to the point of controlling the laws of physics, it makes no sense to design a universe with this built-in limitation. To do so would be to intentionally make it impossible to achieve maximum efficiency. If a human designer had the capability to override the laws of physics, he would most likely do just that in order to create objects that attain true efficiency. This law in and of itself presents a serious problem for intelligent design because while the universe may seem ordered and possibly designed, it defies logic to believe that a being capable of creating a universe would intentionally hinder their own creation and its efficiency.” (Pg. 19)
He repeats his conclusion, and adds, “It does not imply that the universe could not have been set in motion by an outside agency… What it does imply is that the universe could not have been intentionally designed with a purpose because it lacks the benchmark traits of both design and purpose… we can invariably conclude that it has no intelligent designer behind it regardless of how complex it may seem.” (Pg. 20)
He states, “In our solar system, there are nine planets and one star named Sol. Of those nine planets, only one contains intelligent life, and it’s very likely that none of the other eight harbors any type of life at all. Our planet and sun are in no need of those other planets to sustain them; rather, those planets are just THERE… [So the intelligent designer] used only a very small percentage of our solar system… with the rest being leftover debris… Does that sound intelligent to you? Does that sound efficient to you? To anyone who knows anything about design, it very likely sounds like an idiotic premise.” (Pg. 22-23)
He asserts, “life should be abundant if it were intentional, it should be extremely rare if it were a highly improbable accident… it becomes apparent that only one fits with what we can actually see in the universe around us.” (Pg. 24) He adds, “The ‘Goldilocks zone’ is an idea that states that the earth is in exactly the right place in our solar system to accommodate life… it is a fallacy built on misunderstanding… The reason we indulge this fallacy … is arrogance. We’re so focused on ourselves and what is good for us that we rarely consider the idea that what works for us isn’t the only way things can work. While there can be no doubt that the earth is perfect for the types of life that exist here, that doesn’t mean that this is the only possibility.” (Pg. 25)
He concludes, “I can’t give you answers. As much as I wish I could, all I can do is give you an argument that I believe makes a very solid case against the idea of intelligent design. While I can give very solid evidence that the gods posed by the various religions do not exist, I can’t tell you that there is no god at all. For my own part, I do not believe that any god at all exists, but this is merely my belief and not something I know or can prove at all. For me, the evidence against the existence of a god is far greater than any evidence in favor of a god existing.” (Pg. 32)
This booklet is more well-thought out than some of Rigsby’s more “humorous” works. It will interest those looking for a non-technical critique of the notion of “Intelligent Design.”
Casper Rigsby begins this 2015 booklet with “A Brief Introduction to Philosophy.” But later, he explains, “My argument against intelligent design is simple, really. I want to lay it out in a straightforward manner and then address each point in greater detail.” His conclusion is, “The universe could not have been intentionally designed with a purpose by a supernatural agent because it lacks the efficiency that such an agent would be able to confer upon it.” (Pg. 14)
He says of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy), “if a being has infinite power even to the point of controlling the laws of physics, it makes no sense to design a universe with this built-in limitation. To do so would be to intentionally make it impossible to achieve maximum efficiency. If a human designer had the capability to override the laws of physics, he would most likely do just that in order to create objects that attain true efficiency. This law in and of itself presents a serious problem for intelligent design because while the universe may seem ordered and possibly designed, it defies logic to believe that a being capable of creating a universe would intentionally hinder their own creation and its efficiency.” (Pg. 19)
He repeats his conclusion, and adds, “It does not imply that the universe could not have been set in motion by an outside agency… What it does imply is that the universe could not have been intentionally designed with a purpose because it lacks the benchmark traits of both design and purpose… we can invariably conclude that it has no intelligent designer behind it regardless of how complex it may seem.” (Pg. 20)
He states, “In our solar system, there are nine planets and one star named Sol. Of those nine planets, only one contains intelligent life, and it’s very likely that none of the other eight harbors any type of life at all. Our planet and sun are in no need of those other planets to sustain them; rather, those planets are just THERE… [So the intelligent designer] used only a very small percentage of our solar system… with the rest being leftover debris… Does that sound intelligent to you? Does that sound efficient to you? To anyone who knows anything about design, it very likely sounds like an idiotic premise.” (Pg. 22-23)
He asserts, “life should be abundant if it were intentional, it should be extremely rare if it were a highly improbable accident… it becomes apparent that only one fits with what we can actually see in the universe around us.” (Pg. 24) He adds, “The ‘Goldilocks zone’ is an idea that states that the earth is in exactly the right place in our solar system to accommodate life… it is a fallacy built on misunderstanding… The reason we indulge this fallacy … is arrogance. We’re so focused on ourselves and what is good for us that we rarely consider the idea that what works for us isn’t the only way things can work. While there can be no doubt that the earth is perfect for the types of life that exist here, that doesn’t mean that this is the only possibility.” (Pg. 25)
He concludes, “I can’t give you answers. As much as I wish I could, all I can do is give you an argument that I believe makes a very solid case against the idea of intelligent design. While I can give very solid evidence that the gods posed by the various religions do not exist, I can’t tell you that there is no god at all. For my own part, I do not believe that any god at all exists, but this is merely my belief and not something I know or can prove at all. For me, the evidence against the existence of a god is far greater than any evidence in favor of a god existing.” (Pg. 32)
This booklet is more well-thought out than some of Rigsby’s more “humorous” works. It will interest those looking for a non-technical critique of the notion of “Intelligent Design.”
Displaying 1 of 1 review