How to confuse organisms with mousetraps: Machine metaphors and intelligent design

Zygon 45 (3):647-664 (2010)
Why do design arguments—particularly those emphasizing machine metaphors such as “Organisms and/or their parts are machines”—continue to be so convincing to so many people after they have been repeatedly refuted? In this essay I review various interpretations and refutations of design arguments and make a distinction between rationally refuting such arguments (RefutingR) and rendering them psychologically unconvincing (RefutingP). Expanding on this distinction, I provide support from recent work on the cognitive power of metaphors and developmental psychological work indicating a basic human propensity toward attributing agency to natural events, to show that design arguments “make sense”unless one is cued to look more closely. As with visual illusions, such as the Müller-Lyer arrow illusion, there is nothing wrong with a believer's cognitive apparatus any more than with their visual apparatus when they judge the lines in the illusion to be of unequal length. It takes training or a dissonance between design beliefs and other beliefs or experiences to play the role that a ruler does in the visual case. Unless people are cued to “look again” at what initially makes perfect sense, they are not inclined to apply more sophisticated evaluative procedures
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01119.x
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,769
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Philosophy of Biology.Elliott Sober - 2000 - Westview Press.
The Philosophical Writings of Descartes.René Descartes - 1984 - Cambridge University Press.
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.David Hume - 2007 - In Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff & Anand Vaidya (eds.), Philosophical Review. Blackwell. pp. 338-339.

View all 23 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Hume and the Argument for Biological Design.Graham Oppy - 1996 - Biology and Philosophy 11 (4):519-534.
The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis.David J. Chalmers - 2010 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 17 (9-10):9 - 10.
Steve Fuller and Intelligent Design.J. Shearmur - 2010 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (3):433-445.
How Not to Detect Design. [REVIEW]Elliott Sober - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (3):472 - 488.
How Not to Detect Design. [REVIEW]Branden Fitelson - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (3):472 - 488.
Machine Metaphors and Design Arguments.Doren Recker - 2004 - Southwest Philosophy Review 20 (1):211-220.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

53 ( #97,547 of 2,158,890 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #193,038 of 2,158,890 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums