1. Hume
1.1. Nothing in the universe to which a universe could be compared
1.1.1. Any argument from analogy is weak as it relies on experience
1.1.2. We have no experience of any other universe so we can't compare ours to anything
1.2. You can't compare two things like for like
1.2.1. Can't compare human circulatory systems with the way sap circulates in a tree.
1.2.2. A machine is no comparison to a tree
1.2.2.1. this links to Paley's argument - but remember he wrote AFTER Hume
1.2.3. Unless there is a perfect similarity between the two objects you can not draw a conclusion about their design
1.3. Possible that there could be more than one designer
1.3.1. Ship analogy: Many designs, trial and error
1.3.2. Ship anaolgy: Not just one person that builds the ship
1.4. A house buider has an architecht, does the universe?
1.4.1. No comarison between a house and the universe
1.4.2. If the house is faulty, what does that say about the designer?
1.4.3. PALEY rejected this: Not concerned with quality in the design
1.5. Random activity can lead to orderliness
1.5.1. In this situation the tendancy is for things to go from disorder to order
1.5.2. Subsequently backed up by natural selection - order coming out of apparent randomness.
2. Darwinsim
2.1. Evolution
2.1.1. All living things are related
2.1.2. We have evolved over billions of years from a common ancestor
2.1.3. No evidence of design
2.2. REMEMBER
2.2.1. DARWINISM not Darwin
2.3. Natural Selection
2.3.1. Explains the emergence of complex living organisms without design or purpose
2.3.2. Survival of the fitest
2.3.3. Those that develop the skills to survive are the ones that do and manage to reproduce