Recently, Del Ratzsch proposed a new version of the design argument. He
argues that belief in a designer is often formed non-inferentially, much like
perceptual beliefs, rather than formed by explicit reasoning. Ratzsch traces his
argument back to Thomas Reid (1710-1796) who argues that beliefs formed in
this way are also justified. In this paper, I investigate whether design beliefs
that are formed in this way can be regarded as knowledge. For this purpose, I
look closer to recent scientific study of how design beliefs are formed. I argue
that the science strongly suggest that people easily form false beliefs. As a
result, design beliefs can only constitute knowledge if subjects have additional
reasons or evidence for design.