Here I feel it would be useful to explain that the design argument is really provided in two parts, namely Design Qua Regularity, and Design Qua Purpose. Design qua regularity looks at design in relation to order and regularity in our universe. Supporters of this idea believe that the order and regularity, points to the evidence of a designer at work. Aquinas is a person who has based his argument around the idea that the order and regularity of the world shows a designer, so therefore he is arguing from design qua regularity. He regarded the overall order evident in the universe proof that there is a designer, and “this being we call God”
Design qua Purpose however looks at the evidence of design in relation to the ways in which the parts of the universe appear to fit together for some purpose. For example, if I were to take a computer, all the parts inside of it are fitted together in such a way to process vast amounts of data. If I fitted together the computer parts in a random manner, then it would obviously not function. Similarly, some believe, there are parts of nature that have been fitted together to achieve a purpose, which are the result of a designer.
When William Paley came forward with his argument, he argued both from Design qua Purpose, and Design Qua Regularity. In his texts, “A View of the evidences of Christianity” and “Natural Theology” he gave us the example of the Watchmaker. If we suppose a man wandering across a heath, and he were to find a stone, then we would consider this to be nothing extraordinary. We suppose that it would have been there for years and years. But if this were a watch it would be different. I would hardly say the previous answer that it had always been there. Yet why can’t this explanation suffice for both? Because when we inspect the watch we and perceive that its parts have been put together, formed so that the device would create regular motion. If the parts had been shaped differently, or placed in any other order or manner, then either no motion, or no useful answer to provide times or dates, then it would have been chance. But this example is a working watch, which we could surely say is not a coincidence. Paley compared this to the human eye, which is so formed as to provide us with sight. This surely, is not a coincidence? Paley, after creating this argument, then dealt with seven possible objections: If someone said how do we know it has been made if we didn’t see it being created? He said that we do not have to see something being made to know that it has been made. What if it doesn’t work? Something doesn’t have to work/work perfectly for us to know it has been designed. We don’t understand the creation? Just because we cannot understand parts does not mean its not created. What if is a lucky combination? The watch is not simply a combination of its parts. The combination we have works! Remarkable! What if it has been formed by principles of order? Well who put the principles there? God! What if the watch is simply a motive to induce the mind into thinking it was created? It would still have to be made to be like this. Lastly, would we be driven from our conclusion by being told we knew nothing at all about the matter? Just because we are told we know nothing doesn’t mean we don’t know something. We may know something, just not everything.
The sixth objection that Paley answered leads us to William of Ockham. He created Ockham’s razor. This is a idea that, if we are presented with a situation or object with multiple possibilities, then we should simply go for the easiest explanation, as this is usually the right answer, so in this case, the principles on earth are there, that is something which we cannot deny, and the simplest explanation for this is God.
As earlier stated, this early version of the design argument was criticised. David Hume mainly opposed the argument from design. In Dialogues concerning natural Religion he stated his main reasons for opposing the argument. He said that humans do not have sufficient knowledge and experience of the creation of the world to conclude that there is only one designer. Humans have only the experience of that which they have created. We cannot make the same assumption about the world, as it is based on limited experience. He then goes on to say that even if our ideas of design were valid, the design argument simply states that the universe was designed. The classic theistic God did not necessarily carry this out. It could have been a number of Gods, or an apprentice, who created this world, then went on to create bigger and better ones. He also says that there is no evidence to support the benevolent God of Theism. There is evil in this world, so that would suggest a designer who is not the omnipotent and omni benevolent theistic God. Finally, he also said that if we compare the world to a machine, then a machine is usually created and designed by made hands. This would suggest a number of Gods. Hume says that the universe is more like a vegetable, something that grows from its own accord, not something made by hand.
Here we should also consider the Epicurean Hypothesis. This argued that at the time of the creation of the universe there was chaos, and particles in random motion. Given that the universe is eternal, in unlimited time, there would eventually be a constant ordered state. The stability reason and order to our world is not the result of a designer but of random particles coming together. This is a valid criticism to the Design argument, but does in fact rely on the predicate that the universe has existed eternally. We must accept this predicate before we can agree with the Epicurean hypothesis.
The design argument was also criticised in the 19th century by Charles Darwin. He created his theory of natural evolution. This was mainly put forward in his work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859). This challenged the design argument by providing an alternative explanation for the design and creation of the world, without reference to God. He offered the mechanical theory of evolution for the development of life on earth. He said that there are many random variations, of which on variation in a species is the fittest, and therefore survives, because of these advantageous variations. This created the phrase “survival of the fittest” The Origin of Species led many to believe that there was no longer a need for the classical theistic God, as Darwin had provided a scientific, mechanical explanation for life on earth.
As a result of this criticism, in the twentieth century, supporters of the original design argument felt that there was a need to update the principle s that had been lain out by Aquinas, Anaxagoras and Paley. Put forward by Robert Dicke in 1961, the anthropic principle, the main revision of the design argument, was originally put forward by F.R. Tenant in the 1930’s. He first put forward the anthropic principle in his work “Philosophical Theology” (1930). He said that for the cosmos to be constructed in such a way for the development of intelligent life was amazing. He cites three types of evidence that favour a designer for the universe:
- The fact that the world can be analysed in a rational manner
- The way that the inorganic world has produced things to sustain life.
- The progress of evolution focuses on the emergence of intelligent human life
Tenant then developed this idea, He said that it was possible to have a chaotic universe, devoid of rules, and reason, but we do not have this. It seems to have been designed. Human life, according to Tenant, is the culmination of Gods great plan. Not only did Tenant create the anthropic principle, he also created the Aesthetic argument to prove God’s existence. Tenant argued that humans possess the ability to appreciate the beauty of their surroundings. Yet such an appreciation of art, music, literature and so on, does not further our survival, or help develop life, so therefore it is evidence of a divine creator, as it is not the result of natural selection.
This was then taken by Robert Dicke of Princeton University, to create the modern day Anthropic Principle. He says that the universe has been so designed to allow and sustain intelligent life. In other words, if the initial conditions of the universe had been otherwise then human life would not have existed. Dicke said that the slightest fluctuation in the condition of the universe would have made it impossible for life to have formed. Pierre Lecomte du Nouy, in 1947 calculated that the probability of just one of the basic constituents of life appearing was 2.02 x 10 to the power of –321. More recently in 1981, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculated that the chance of obtaining all 2000 enzymes needed for life in some kind of primeval soup was on part of 10^40 000 which made the old idea of special creation a more likely possibility. Paul Davies said that the perfect balance between gravity and a weak nuclear force is needed for the expansion of the universe. The accuracy of these two forces must be tuned to:
All of this leads us to the conclusion that the case for the idea of a special creation of the universe is much stronger than the chance of it happening randomly.
Richard Swinburne also developed a new design argument in his work The
existence of God (1979) In this he puts forward a fairly decisive design argument. He puts forward two types of order in the universe that he sees. The first is special. We find regularities of co-presence, for example American Cities on a grid, they are ordered for a particular purpose. This is just as Paley put it, yet unfortunately, this has already been massacred by Hume! The second is temporal regularity. This is order, which covers regularities of succession, e.g. laws of physics. The universe may have been chaotic, but it is not. It is orderly. Hume rejected this by saying that we “see” order into the universe. Swinburne says that we not only see order, but there is order, even if we attempt to go contrary to the order. It is clearly not an order imposed by us, as it is there even when we do not want it to be. We need something therefore, beyond science. Swinburne says that God is the simplest explanation for the order, which produced mankind
This again, of course faced criticism. The main opposition in the 20th century came from Richard Dawkins. He supported Darwin. In his works, The Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker, he argues against the typical design arguments. He says that while natural selection gives the impression of design, which leads us to mistakenly believe there is a designer, in fact it is really all about preserving the best DNA. He says that we always search for a purpose, a “why?” to the universe. Post Darwin believers usually accept the how, but do not think that Darwin provides the why. Dawkins believes that science will answer both. He introduces the idea of reverse engineering. If we take something and look at it we should be able to analyse it to find its purpose. Dawkins uses this to say that, if there is a god, then why would he create a world like this? He uses the example of cheetahs and antelopes. Cheetahs are designed maximise deaths of antelopes. Antelopes however, are designed to survive, and starve cheetahs. It seems, Dawkins says, that two rival deities have designed them!
From the Greek word telos, meaning ‘end’ or ‘goal’
David Hume Actually put forward his rebuff of Aquinas BEFORE Paley conceived of his argument.
A view of the evidences of Christianity - 1794
An example of Ockham’s Razor
Reference to Paley, if God were a watchmaker, then surely he is blind, as to create a world with such evil?
