The Random Design Argument

Abstract

The "random design argument" is a popular but questionable mode of justification that can be found in the scientific literature. The first part of this argument is that, if God had designed X, the features of X would approximate randomness. The second part of this argument is that a random design can therefore be used as a null hypothesis against which any non-design theory can be weighed. The first part of the argument is problematic because it incorporates theology into the practice of science. The second part of the argument is problematic because the null hypothesis is supposed to be the logical complement of the hypothesis. Despite its logical failings, the random design argument has a long history of use for justifying various scientific hypotheses. This paper documents several areas where the random design argument has been used (both currently and historically) as well as details the logical problems with the argument.