These points are laying out facts to us. They are pointing out that the way the universe is everything has a purpose- men and women are there to reproduce, food to eat, chairs to be sat on etc…. , and that everything is designed with such sheer detail that it had to have been designed. Take the human body for example. We are designed symmetrically. Surely it cannot be an accident or luck that we have two eyes, two arms, four fingers on each hand and so on. Maybe if we were created by chance one or two people would be so lucky as to have such perfect bodies, but there is no way that thousands of us would have such equally proportioned as we do by chance.
Now, the design argument comes in two parts- design qua regularity and design qua purpose. Meaning design relating to regularity and design relating to purpose.
The aspect of design qua regularity examines the design in relation to the order and regularity of the universe. The order and regularity presented to us is evidence of a designer at work in itself. You could think of this as a painting showing evidence of a painter. Someone had to have moved their brush in such strokes and picked such colours in order to have produced such a masterpiece and this aspect looks at the universe in the same light.
St Thomas Aquinas argued in the fifth of his five ways that the way in which “natural bodies” act in a regular fashion to accomplish their purpose provides the evidence needed for the evidence of an intelligent being.
Aquinas- “Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”
In this quote, Aquinas is saying that all the order apparent in the world is proof of a designer- this designer being God.
However, the design qua purpose aspect looks at the world in relation to the ways the parts fit together for a purpose of some sort. The design is compared to a man-made machine where the parts have been fitted together for a purpose. With a mobile for instance- the parts have been designed so that they can transmit messages and calls. If the parts had simply been put together at random, then the mobile wouldn’t be able to transmit messages for it wouldn’t be able to function at all!
William Paley- “In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there for ever…….. 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 given before, yet for any thing I knew the watch might have always been there……..when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive……that it’s several parts are framed and put together for a purpose….”
Thereby Paley is saying that if he stumbled across a stone in a field- and was questioned its purpose there, he could say that for all he knew it has always lain there. However, if he stumbled across a watch in a field and was questioned about its purpose- he couldn’t give the same answer he had before despite the fact that for all he knew the watch could have always lain there. For, the watch showed evidence that the parts had been fitted together for a purpose and to any intelligent person this would suggest evidence of design. In the same way, we can look at the world and see that things fit together for a purpose. Paley used the eye as an example. All its parts fit together in order to produce sight. Such evidence as this, along with birds having wings to fly etc… once again show evidence of a designer- that designer being God.
Now, a recent development of the teleological argument is the Anthropic principle. This argument claims that the cosmos is constructed for the development of intelligent life. The new design denies any claim that there are coincidences connected to the creation of the universe. Some supporters even go as far as to say that the best explanation is the existence of a designer, this designer being God.
Tennat developed this theory and believed there were three types of natural evidence in a favour of a divine designer.
- The fact the world can be analysed in a rational manor.
- The way in which the inorganic world provided the basic necessities required to sustain life.
- The progress of evolution towards the emergence of intelligent human life.
Tennant believed that it would be able to imagine a chaotic universe in which no rules applied, however, the universe isn’t chaotic and was designed so that the evolutionary process would create an environment in which intelligent life could exist.
Tennant also believed in the Aesthetic principle to prove God’s existence, Tennat argued that humans possess the ability to appreciate the beauty of their surroundings. Yet such ability is not necessary for survival or development of life. Therefore this is evidence of a creator. Thereby not being a result of natural selection- evolutionary change.
So, in conclusion- the design argument has a lot of proof for the existence of God. It doesn’t matter what part of the argument you look at because in the end they all point towards the same conclusion. Everything in our universe has been designed to intricately for it to be chance. Why would a watch have hands if it wasn’t to tell us the time? Why would a car drive unless someone had designed it to do so? Everything in our world points towards having a designer, and the only person capable of designing such products is God.
