subject: Science and Intentionality [print this page] While I believe that design is an attribute, or rather an ability, of the conscious mind, if there are natural things which were not designed, then design is not a necessity of production. Despite having a rather obviously singular function, other than for aesthetic and stylistic purposes, a watch could be as normal and mundane as a rock.
One of the examples we have used for design was of a watch and a watchmaker, by William Paley. He speaks of the notion of finding a rock on the road, and believing that it is there merely because it is natural for it to be there, and should one find a watch just laying there you would not come to the same conclusion. On an inspection of a watch, assuming you have some kind of understanding of the function of watches, you find that it is used for a particular function. Certain pieces which do not naturally come together, are found in a particular form which is used to the ends of the function of its whole. To find that a combination of materials that forms something with a purpose and function, to Paley, implies that there is a maker of this object.
I do not believe that science really has a role in these kind of questions. Science will explain how an organ works, and what the purpose it is used for, but it has nothing to do with why the organ was made. It will tell you how a tree formed, but not the purpose for the existence of the tree.
We used the example in class of the design of bridges. We find that it is most likely that a Portland bridge had a designer, and that it was made for the specific purpose of being a bridge. By believing there is a function to this bridge, we not only believe that there was a designer, but there was intent by the designer to create a certain function in a product for a creator.
