There are two more famous arguments for the Design argument the first in the 13th Century by Thomas Aquinas and the second in the 18th Century by William Paley. Thomas Aquinas argued for design qua regularity in the fifth of his five ways, ‘from the governance of things’. He argued natural things lack knowledge but act regularly towards and end or goal, for example the seasons, and this therefore must be a product of design as it can not happen by chance. He concluded that things in the universe must be directed towards their end by an intelligent being, God. Aquinas used the analogy of an archer and an arrow, the archer guides the arrow to its end, in the same way God guides nature to its end.
The most famous form of the argument was published by William Paley in 1802. Paley argued for both regularity and purpose. Paley used analogy to compare the complicated and ordered universe with the complicated and ‘man-made’ product, a watch.
He argues that if you were to walk across a field and saw a stone it would be ridiculous to ask how the stone got there. However, if during your walk in the field you came across a pocket watch it would be reasonable to ask how it got there as unlike the stone the watch shows the appearance of design. This is due to the fact it has a variety of different parts all working together to produce motion so that the time can be told. He also argued that even if the watch was broken or had parts missing, if we had never seen a watch before and if we did not understand how or why the watch worked, we would still know that the watch was designed due to its complexity.
Paley applied the same argument to the human eye and the way it is adapted for sight and has a purpose for seeing; therefore its complex design implies a designer. He concluded that similarly as the watch is a result of intelligent design, the universe must have been brought into existence by an intelligent designer who must be God.
As with any argument there are two sides and this was clearly shown by David Hume in the 18th Century. Hume criticisms of the Design Argument were published three years after his death possibly due to the hostility regarding his views towards religion, especially Christianity. He presented his argument in the form of Dialogues using three character; Cleanthes, Hume’s presentation of an a posteriori argument for the design argument; Philo, the critique of the design argument and possibly Hume’s own view; and finally Demea, the source of reasoning and the a priori argument for the cosmological and ontological arguments.
Hume has several reasons for opposing the design argument and in particular the use of analogy to explain them. There are two points to Hume’s attack on the Design argument’s analogies. Firstly, the analogy does not necessarily point to a designer. One of the main arguments for the design argument, especially Paley’s analogy, is that the world is mechanical. However, Hume suggests that the world is more organical than mechanical as it grows rather than being made as it is; and that human knowledge and experience of the creation of the world is not sufficient, due to the fact humans have experience of a watch or machine being made where as humans have no experience of the creation of the world. Hume uses an Epicurean hypothesis to explain that, although like a machine there is order and regularity in the world, this could be the result of chance. He explains that the universe is formed from millions of particles that move about randomly and therefore these particles can go through every combination in an infinite time period. As a result, these combinations will sometimes produce order and other times disorder; consequently on occasion will produce conditions that are able to support life and other times not; therefore Hume believes that human life is merely a product of a chance arrangement of these particles.
The second point of the attack on the analogy is that even if these analogies are correct, the designer may not be the traditional God of Judaeo-Christianity. This is mainly due to the fact that although, as the design argument states, there is order, beauty and regularity in the world, it fails to acknowledge the fact there is also suffering, cruelty and ugliness. This therefore indicates that because of the evil in the world, if there is a designer it can not be the benevolent and omnipotent God of classical theism as an all-loving and good God would not have created a world with suffering and evil. For this reason we may be lead to believe that evil in the world would indicate an evil deity or possibly non-mortal and therefore possibly more than one God. In reality, Hume does not present an argument against the design argument but takes some of its key points to a logical conclusion which makes them unacceptable to a Christian believer.
As well as those of Hume there are several other criticisms of the design argument, especially the analogies put forward to explain them. Due to the evil and suffering in the world as well as the imperfections, for example the San Andreas Fault, then God did not complete the creation of the world accurately. Another question that can be drawn from the use of analogies and the design argument is as follows, if there is a God where is he or she now? However, this question can not be answered fully either way due to lack of evidence. These analogies can not be acceptable as God must transcend human understanding, so if we are to use the analogy of a machine then we are lead to believe that like any machine, the world was made by several God rather than one. The argument also predates Christianity as it was used by Socrates and Plato who were not monotheists and therefore if there is a designer, due to this fact, there must not be one designer but many. These analogies concentrate on the Earth so do not take into account the rest of the universe. Finally, humans do not know possess all the knowledge of the universe, that this is the only universe and that life on Earth is the only life in the universe.
Although there may be evidence of design in the world and this may point to a designer but we can not conclude that this designer is God or more specifically the traditional Judaeo-Christian God. More recently, these analogies have been proved to be incorrect due to new evidence of evolution. In conclusion, these analogies can not be used to fully explain the design argument as they lack evidence and fail to consider all sides of the argument.
