Willam Palely looked at design qua regularly and used evidence such as Newton’s laws of motion to further prove design in the universe. The universal laws such as gravity and the rotation of the planets were used by palely to prove that the universe have not just been an accident they proved the universe had design order and regularity.
The second version of the design argument is design qua purpose. William Paley puts forward the most famous idea of the design argument using the analogy of the watch and the stone
“ …incrossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there,” William replied that he saposed the stone had laid there forever but he goes on to say, “…but suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, meaning he knew some one created the watch and probably dropped it because “…when we come to inspect the watch, perceive – what we could not discover in the stone – that it’s several parts are framed and put together for a purpose…”
The first part of Paleys’ design qua purpose argument is to show that there must be a purpose in the universe. Paley analogy attempts to compare the universe to a watch; and state that the universe is so complex i.e. it has parts that all work in unison together in motion, just like a watch, and because of this it is also logical to ask who or what created the universe because we presume that such intricacy implies a designer. Palely used the idea of like effects have like causes and came up with the conclusion that the universes had a designer. He did however make it clear the designer of the universe must be infinitely greater than the designer of man made things such as watches since the universe is infinitely greater than a man made mechanic i.e. the watch.
The teleological argument has been developed by philosophers in the 20th century and from this recent development we are now aware of the theory of the Anthropic Principle which basically argues probabilities, i.e. what are the chances of the universes existing and in the way that it does.
The Anthropic principle was developed by F.R. Tennant he believe that there are three types of evidence supporting the existence of a designer i.e. God firstly he said that, “the fact that the world can be analysed in a rational manner,” “The way in which the inorganic world has provided the basic necessities required to sustain life,” also “the progress of evolution towards the emergence of intelligent human life.”
F.R. Tennant proposed an aesthetic form of the argument. He argued that beauty is not essential for survival, yet many things in the universe are beautiful and equipped with far more than they need for simple existence for the survival of the fittest. The Anthropic Principle would conclude that this serves of evidence that a creator had been at work – and that this creator is or even was god
In conclusion, examining the gesign argument it is clear that the design argument is built up of many points made from many different philosophers from many different periods of time, and has been varied several times, however, each of the variations seem very similar – and each variation point to the universe being very complex, with that there must have been a creator is the simplest explanation - however, as the design argument is inductive it is not possible to reach such a conclusion.