analogy. In this he pondered upon how a sophisticated watch had come to be in a deserted field.
“But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground…we perceive its several parts are framed and
adjusted as to produce motion…”
He then proceeds to explain that we presume the watch had a maker; the watch could
not have existed purely from chance. He compares this man-made object to the natural universe
and thus concludes the universe could likewise not have been spawned from a series of chances,
but in fact something so complex must have a maker too. This maker is whom he perceives god
to be. Paley also uses the example of an eye and how the various components of an eye all work
together for the purpose of seeing. He muses that an intelligent designer must have made this
because the design is far too intricate and it works so perfectly, that it cannot have come to exist
by chance.
Arthur Brown was another theologian who argued design qua purpose proves existence
for god. He argues that the ozone layer is evidence for design. Without the ozone layer, nature
would die from ultraviolet light and oxygen would escape from the world.
“The ozone gas layer is a mighty proof of the creator’s forethought. Could anyone attribute this device to
a chance evolutionary process? A wall which prevents death to every living thing, just the right thickness and
exactly the correct defence gives evidence of a plan”
Hence the sheer complexities and perfection of the ozone layer provides evidence that
god had a plan for the earth. By chance alone this could not have come to exist. Arthur Brown is
a twentieth century philosopher, and he is more aware of scientific advance than previously
discussed philosophers, and hence, their ideas agree with his and stand in the twentieth century
also, despite advances in evolution and technology.
F.R Tennant devised the Anthropic (linked to study of science and mankind)
Principle for the existence of God. He argues the Cosmos was designed for the purpose of life,
and one tiny change could have resulted in life being impossible. Therefore, he presumes that
God exists, and designed the Earth perfectly with the intention of creating a perfect environment
for life. Tennant came up with three ideas of natural evidence favour of a supreme designer.
The first argument is that the world can be analysed in a rational manner, hence the
world is not completely random and chaotic, hence the world must have been designed by
supreme being who enforced order. The second argument is similar to William Paley’s design
qua purpose theory. It related the fact that the inorganic world sustains life on a basic level to the
notion that god designed it for this very purpose. Thus not by chance alone did the world come
to exist so perfectly to sustain life. The third piece of evidence is evolution. Tennant believed that
evolution was caused by God, a natural progression to human life. He argues that how could
animals evolve in such a huge change that their lungs jumped from sea to air, without a helping
hand from a designer God. All this he described as a posteriori evidence and linked all evidence
to create a wider teleogical argument for the existence of god by proof of a designer.
“…it consists rather in the conspiration of innumerable causes to produce, by either united and reciprocal
action, and to maintain, a general order of Nature.”
Tennant developed the Aesthetic argument to prove God’s existence. This argued that
humans possess the ability to appreciate poetry, nature, music, literature and art and these
appreciations are not necessary for survival. Therefore, humans did not evolve by needs of
survival to appreciate these things (evolution) so there must be a divine creator who rewards
humanity with these beneficial and pleasurable enjoyments. Therefore he concludes that there
must be a god of design behind the workings of the world.
Richard Swinburne decided to use probability and chance theories to work out
whether the world came about by chance or design. He concluded by agreeing with Arthur
Brown and stating that the world was far too complex to come about by pure chance alone.
There have, however, been many criticisms of the design argument as evidence for the
existence of the god of classical theism. Charles Darwin brought about the theory of evolution,
which explains the way in which, by natural selection, species can develop to meet their needs of
survival. His book On the Origin of Species described how all the features of the design qua
purpose argument regarding the sophistication of animals, were actually chance mutations in
genes that had developed more sophisticated features which helped them to survive better as a
mutated species. Darwin argued that random variations in DNA base sequences had caused the
perfect models for each situation as opposed to a god of design.
Richard Dawkins has since written several books to support Charles Dawrin’s theories.
He argues that the theory of evolution proves that God does not exist because Darwinism
explains the reason for the existence of humanity in its present form, and that humanity formed
from a series of random mistakes rather than by a god of design. However, supporters of the
Anthropic Principle believe that Darwinism can be accepted, and in fact can be supportive of the
belief in God as a designer. The supporters believe that evolution is another complex plan of
God’s when he was designing the earth. They believe that like any machine, it needed a designer
and without God, life wouldn’t exist on earth, as it requires too great a chance for life to simple
come to exist in the universe, isolated, without an original designer of the earth.
In 1779 David Hume emerged as a main opponent of the design argument. He
maintained that humans do not have sufficient knowledge and experience of the world to
conclude that there is only one designer. He stated that humans only had knowledge of the things
they designed and so couldn’t relate this to the creation of something so huge as the universe. He
also argued that if the human experience of design was valid, then the argument would only
conclude there was a designer, and not that the designer was the god of classical theism.
“This world, for all he knows, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard; and was
only the first rude essay of some enfant deity who afterwards abandoned it”
This quote from David Hume expresses his belief that we know not what designer
created the earth, if any. He also believed that the very existence of evil in the world meant that
the argument of design is deemed useless for supporting a god of classical theism. For instance,
how could an ompotent, omnicscient and beneavolent god create a world that contained so
much suffering.
Hume also argued that trying to use the development of the earth in comparison to
human terms was ridiculous, because god transcends human understanding. He also says likening
the universe to a machine is not acceptable because the universe is more like an animal, that
grows of its own accord, rather than an inert machine made by hand.
John Stuart Mill also challenged the idea of the existence of a God of classical theism.
He argued in agreement with Hume that the existence of pain and suffering meant that the
existence of an all knowing, all loving and all powerful God was questionable. This also meant
that the evidence of the design argument for the existence of god is also questionable, because
surely an all knowing god would not have brought about such a cruel earth. He concludes
whoever designed the earth must have let it happen by chance rather than careful planning., or in
fact, that no one designed the earth, it merely occurred by chance.
The Epicurean Hypothesis argues that the universe consisted particles in random
motion and its initial state was chaotic. Then natural forces evolved it into an ordered system. He
states that the universe is eternal and in this state of unlimited time it was inevitable that a
constantly ordered state would develop. Therefore, in unlimited time, the chance of an ordered
earth coming about was reasonable. This goes against the need for the existence of a God of
classical theism, and a designer.
Immanuel Kant emphasised that the design argument depended on there being design
in the universe. It also depended on the belief there was a designer, and that the universe has
regularity, order and purpose. Kant muses that the universe may be in chaos, but our mind
organises it into regularity, and that we cannot be certain of reality. Therefore, without certainty
that the universe is regular, the design argument and the existence of a designer and God can be
dismissed.
In conclusion, I believe that Immanuel Kant’s theory is the most acceptable. Without the
knowledge of the order of the universe we cannot declare that there is a designer. On the Earth I
believe Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, but how the earth came to exist so that it sustained
the first living cell, is a comprehension I simply do not wish to undertake. I believe that science
eventually will prove all of the theories in support of the God of classical theism wrong. For
example, evolution proved wrong the theory that god made the perfect human without chance,
and one day perhaps science will prove the theory that God supports evolution wrong. The belief
in a God of Classical theism supports a belief that God is all loving, and hence our earth is not
free from evil, so the fact God made earth proves against him designing it from a plan. I
conclude that if there was a God, he made the earth taking chances, and did not undertake a
series of carefully thought out plans.
