How are the first cause and the design argument different?

Answer 1

These are two different religious arguments to justify faith. The First Cause argument attempts to prove there must be a God, because the world must have been created. The argument for Intelligent Design attempts to prove that living things were created by God. A variation on this is the attempt to prove that although life certainly appears to have evolved, each stage was predetermined by God. Both arguments are dismissed by research scientists because they do not fit the facts.

Interestingly, some of those who would deny the evidence of science insist that the answer is in the First Cause argument but others who would also deny the evidence of science challenge this as sophistry and back the design argument. However, even some of the arguments put forward for the design argument are examples of sophistry. Take, for example, the claim that D.M.S. Watson was a reluctant believer in evolution. D.M.S. Watson said, when the study of evolution was still in its infancy [1929: 'Adaptation' published in Nature], "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of Paleontology, and of geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible." After two pages of further discussion he went on to elucidate further: "If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." As Watson stated, it is naturally true that no one had actually observed evolution taking place or that evolution could be proven by the application of philosophical argument, but it does fit all the facts in a way that no alternative hypothesis could. Unfortunately, some creationists have taken the two separate statements out of context, concatenated them and omitted what Watson was really saying, to create the impression that Watson, and by extension modern scientists, only accepted the theory of creation quite reluctantly.

Variations on the design argument, in the context of biblical creation and evolution theory, are presented at: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 2

The first cause argument proposes that there must be an initial cause for the existence of the universe, suggesting a necessary prime mover or creator. The design argument, on the other hand, posits that the complexity and order in the universe imply a deliberate designer for its existence. While the first cause argument focuses on causality, the design argument emphasizes the apparent evidence of intelligent design in the universe.

Answer 3

The argument of a First Cause is a futile exercise in sophistry. It says that everything must have a cause or source, and the original or highest Cause is God. The problem with this logic is that people ask "so what caused God?" The argument from design, however, is a different thing altogether. It points to the infinite wisdom which even a casual observer can see in the created things. This Wisdom is the hand of God.

What_are_some_proofs_offered_by_Creationists

http://judaism.answers.com/jewish-philosophy/can-you-prove-that-god-exists

http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_26.htm

Given the beauty and wisdom in Creation, why doesn't everyone acknowledge God? Let's see:

They accept evolution "Not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible" (D.M.S. Watson, chair of evolution at the University of London).
"Materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, former professor of genetics at Harvard University).
"I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution" (Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner and professor emeritus of Biology at Harvard University).

"I want atheism to be true, and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers" (New York University philosophy professor Thomas Nagel).

If they have doubts, why don't they abandon evolution?

"Most professors continue to teach evolution in the universities, out of fear," explains Dr. Phillip E. Johnson, retired professor of law at the University of California Berkeley. "This fear is that of not being tenured, of not getting research grants, of not being published, and of not being accepted by their peers. They must follow the party line, which is evolution. This is how the academic game is played."