William Paley took a different approach in explaining the existence of God. The first part of his arguments was design qua regularity. Paley used a simple analogy when developing his design argument. If we were to find a pocket watch, we would presume that all its parts were put together for a certain purpose and did not come to existence by chance. So someone must have designed the watch for its purpose. Taking that into account, when we observe the world, we conclude that there is design, because of the way things fit together for its purpose. Paley also used an example of an eye and how it’s adapted for sight. He believed that the eye is designed for a specific purpose, which suggests an intelligent designer. The second part of his design argument was design qua regularity. He argued that the rotation of the planet, and how the obey the same universal laws suggest that they could not have come about by chance. This means that an external agent must have imposed order on the universe. On the other hand, there are also modern design arguments which explain the design argument. Tenant disagreed with the claim that coincidence led to the evolution of human life. He believed that the universe was designed in an evolutionary process to create an environment in which an intelligent life could exist. Tennant concluded that human life part of God’s plan. Tennant developed his argument further by suggesting that the world it’s not just ordered, but it beautiful. This part of his argument is called the aesthetic argument. Tennant argued that humans have the ability to appreciate this beauty, but it’s not necessary for survival. Therefore this evidence suggests a creator.
These are four main arguments explain how the world came into existence with or without the influence of God. However, they succeeded in explaining the design argument, because they used strong and clear evidence.
- ‘Science makes the design argument irrelevant’ assess the claim (AO2 15 marks)
To an extent, I agree with the claim that science makes the design argument irrelevant. This is because modern philosophers have reasoned that an argument can be developed for the design of the universe without reference to the creation by God. Richard Darwin’s was a modern supporter of Charles Dawkins and a strong critic of the design argument. Dawkins believed that the discovery DNA contradicts the design argument. He argued that the discovery of DNA provides valid reason for the existence of humanity. Therefore, there is no need of making the assumption that that God formed human life.
However, I disagree with the statement that science makes the design argument irrelevant. When you observe the world, you conclude that external being must have designed the world, and that external being must be God. Richard Swinburne is a modern Christian philosopher who supported the design argument and tenant’s argument (beauty). Swinburne’s argument stated that need an explanation for how the world’s fundamental laws works with regularity. He argued that an intelligent being is behind and we can find this when we look how humans tend to behave. For example, we able to nature and observe seeds when planted, therefore we use this information to aid for survival. This indicates that God is caring for humanity, and giving them the autonomy to make our own choices and gain knowledge from experience. Therefore this proves that the divine intelligence is God.
I personally believe that science doesn’t make the design argument irrelevant. Particular modern design argument tends to their intellect and scientific evidence to prove the existence of God, which is irrelevant. Moreover, I strongly disagree with Richard Dawkin’s claim that religion does not encourage. Christians do not need to examine further to find the truth, because they need faith to believe in the existence of God. If God wanted to prove he exists, he would have produced enough evidence. Instead, he gave people the choice to whether to believe him or not.
