The phrase "argument of design" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in discussions related to philosophy, theology, or debates about the existence of a designer based on the perceived order and complexity in the universe.
Example: "The argument of design suggests that the intricate details of nature imply the existence of an intelligent creator."
Alternatives: "design argument" or "teleological argument".
The British naturalist wrote that "the old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered" (Barlow 1958, p. 112).
Not only does the evidence of history make this clear, we know as well that if theism, based on the (obvious and convincing) argument of design, were the original religion then it would be impossible to explain how polytheism could have ever arisen out of it.
In his autobiography, Darwin wrote that "The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered".
Dawkins states: "the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design.
Students provided explantations of their argument, of their design methods and their aims.
Evolutionary biologists maintain that the arguments of intelligent design do not survive scrutiny, but they concede that a specialist's knowledge of particular mathematical or biological disciplines is often needed to clinch the point.
"...science HAS falsified creationism (and the arguments of intelligent design)." By the way... when I'm talking about "creationism" I mean the argument for the existence of an intelligent creator, as opposed to the idea of life self-assembling without the need for the input of intelligence.
Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing" Jonathan, science HAS falsified creationism (and the arguments of intelligent design).
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has criticized the book for presenting all of the basic arguments of intelligent design proponents and being actively promoted for use in public schools before any research had been done to support these arguments.
Evaluation results are given to demonstrate the validity of the theoretical argument of the proposed design for real-time applications.
Creationist claims have persisted that such complexity evolving without a designer is inconceivable, however, and this objection to evolution has been refined in recent years as the more sophisticated irreducible complexity argument of the intelligent design movement, formulated by biochemist Michael Behe.
