Similarly, Einstein is against the design argument as he argues that it is more probable that the universe came about by chance and is ruled by blind forces.
However, there is a substantial defence for the design argument regarding cause and effect. Thomas Aquinas believed every effect has a cause, he explained how for anything to move it is necessary that it was put in motion by something else which was also put in motion by something else. He used this argument to claim that there must have been something (an unmoved mover) that started everything and caused it to move, he decided the only possible explanation could be God because he is eternally existent. Another of his arguments regarding the debate about design is his illustration of the universe that he believes works towards some sort of goal, however he goes on to insist that if this is true then there must surely be a supreme intelligence responsible for directing everything. Conclusively Aquinas argues that this is also evidence for the existence of God.
Criticisms of Aquinas’ arguments come from Richard Swinburne, he states that each individual argument is weak and only appears strong when they are put together.
However, it could be argued that it is difficult to understand what Aquinas meant as it is surely dependent upon the context that an individual interprets them in to the message that is taken from each.
The argument from Aquinas is without doubt significant to the design argument as it clearly appears to demonstrate evidence which suggests towards cause and effect in the world. This cause and effect theory attempts to show that things are not caused by chance therefore implying that the world is designed.
On the other hand Darwin alleges that cause and effect only appears as a theory because the world has evolved and created this impression. Instead – he claims – the only logical argument for the universe is that it came from chance. Darwin argued that matter organises itself without the need for a mind and intelligence and the apparent appearance of order and design could be due to evolution. He disagrees with Aquinas’ idea that the universe works towards some sort of goal instead claiming that as conditions alter the universe simply changes. This evolutionary principle has been compared to a blind watch maker, someone who does not know what they are doing because nature changes and has not been designed by an omniscient being.
Darwin’s argument shows that it could be possible that the universe just happened without any purpose or ultimate goal. The more complex the development and harmonious order of the universe the more it appears designed even if it originated from random chance. Therefore it is surely indisputable that you can have order without design, like Darwin demonstrates.
Significantly Immanuel Kant also disagreed with the idea of a purposeful and ordered universe. He strongly argued that the reason the universe appears so ordered is because our minds organise our experiences to create that belief. He went on to outline how we can never be certain of anything (including reality) and so even if you believe the universe is ordered you can never be truly sure. This is based on the idea of solipsism - a lonely theory – it demonstrates how each person experiences things as an individual and can never share other people’s experiences. We only know what the world is like to ourselves our personal view could be entirely different from anyone else’s.
Despite the major and on-going debate between the undeniably different theories of design and evolution some theists and philosophers accept both as possibilities. Tennant is conceivably one of the first philosophers to argue that intelligence and planning was behind evolution. He said that the universe was heading towards a goal and any evolutionary changes were down to intelligent design that was pre-planned.
The anthropic principle was famously developed by Tennant. This principle is an argument that states the universe must have been planned; this is because it is far too coincidental that human life is able to survive in such unlikely circumstances. This causes many theists to claim it must have been planned by God. Richard Swinburne supports this principle as he believes that the order of the universe suggests that the world is adapted to sustain human life.
However this is highly doubted by sceptics who remain unconvinced, if the conditions had been any different the human race could have also died out like the dinosaurs. Surely any species that manages to survive successfully might equally assume the world was made for them. The explanation of God as the designer and creator of the world consequently leaves questions unanswered; it fails to provide reasons to why disasters such as earthquakes - that kill innocent people and inflict suffering – occur in a supposedly ordered and perfect world.
The argument from design is arguably very persuasive, it clearly demonstrates the way everything appears to be adapted for a specific function and shows how this consequently suggests the possibility of design. Many theists and philosophers view the complex and harmonious universe as having been designed by a supreme intelligence, as its incredibility seems far too powerful to have just come about by random chance.
Payley’s watch analogy does show how there is – to an extent – an empirical similarity between the world and a watch. Therefore it surely makes you consider how you wouldn’t believe a watch found on the ground arrived there due to random chance, causing you to take the same view on the existence of the universe.
However it is undeniable that science has proved our DNA is closely linked to monkeys thus backing up the theories of Darwin who argued that we have evolved from them. Darwin criticised the design argument by alleging things such as cause & effect only suggests the world is designed, he claimed it could alternatively be down to evolution. A further counter-argument that he provided, regarding the harmonious order of the universe was that as conditions alter the universe simply changes giving the impression that there is a pre-planned design behind it.
Although some people have claimed that there could still be a supreme intelligence that caused the universe and is in control of evolution.
However in my personal opinion I believe that the universe just happened. The watch analogy is without doubt inconclusive and because of this lack of accuracy and proof I am more convinced with the arguments from philosophers like Darwin and Hume. It is undeniable that science has proved to be far more accurate at giving us reliable predictions of things like the weather and it has also been able to support the findings of Darwin.
The arguments from design may be persuasive but they are nothing more than hypotheses compared to actual proofs.
Without doubt it is impossible to prove or disprove the arguments for and against design as well as the argument for and against a supreme God behind everything.
Bertrand Russell clearly explained how it is impossible to prove or disprove there is a God by using his celestial teapot analogy. The analogy basically states that if you were to claim a china teapot was orbiting the sun people would assume you were talking ludicrously and insist that there was no such teapot. However, if you explained that it was an extremely small teapot that couldn’t even be seen by the most powerful telescopes its existence would remain implausible although it wouldn’t be disprovable. If the teapot, was based on writing from ancient scripts, had been taught sacredly every Sunday as the undying truth and indoctrinated into children’s minds then to question its existence would seem bizarre and those that did would be alienated by society as abnormal. This analogy demonstrates how the hypotheses for and against the existence of the teapot orbiting the sun are improbable but can’t be disproved. By using the arguments of this analogy we can surely understand that however much you attempt to prove or disprove the design argument you shall most likely create further hypotheses and come to little or no conclusion.
