ABSTRACT
In this essay, I use Bayesian tools to criticize the conception of design arguments that Hume develops in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, but my goal is not to chide Hume for his shortcomings. Rather, my essay is addressed to philosophers of the present who think that Hume demolished the argument from design. Not that I think that the argument is now alive and well, nor do I think that the argument was in fine shape until Darwin developed his theory of evolution. Hume was on to something when he thought that the design argument is flawed. It is the details of his case for this negative verdict that I wish to challenge and replace.
