In this essay I will try to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the argument from design. I believe that this essay will hint at the argument being quite effective.
The argument can be divided in to two parts: design as relating to regularity, and design relating to purpose. The above example is the latter – the watch has a purpose and the rock does not. Therefore, it is plausible to believe someone created the watch for that purpose. There is much strength to the teleological argument. Probably its best point is that it is simple to understand (e.g. Ockham’s razor). Because of its simplicity it can easily be applied to a multitude of situations and examples. The simplicity of the argument is what has led to the widespread belief of the argument, as it is easy for anyone to comprehend to a certain degree.
Interestingly, the idea of the teleological argument being so versatile leads to an interesting point. The chances of every factor being perfect to sustain life (e.g. distance from a sun, water on the planet, etc,) is 1/1040,000. This number is amazingly minute! Therefore, one may argue, there HAS to be a creator, based on this idea alone, and that this in itself is proof of the existence of (a) God.
The use of analogies in this argument makes it easy to compare to everyday life. The comparison of an eye to a camera or a leaf to a solar panel could be greeted with contempt by a skeptic, who could argue that the comparisons are only true as humans endeavour to mimic nature in many forms. The list continues, however, with examples such as a dialysis machine functioning like a kidney, a pipe like a vein, or a computer being similar to a brain. These are only a few examples and these can show how examples are not always built on humans copying nature. A pipe does not use heartbeats and pressure to carry liquids – it merely lets the liquid flow freely. A dialysis machine does not use natural filtration methods – it is totally artificial. Most importantly, a computer could not begin to attempt to copy the human brain – it is just too complex to attempt.
Many have used the idea of Darwin’s natural selection as a criticism of the teleological argument. Natural selection, or Darwinism, as it may be called, suggests that species have arrived at their present states due to evolution. Evolution occurs as there is only survival for the fittest when there is so much competition. Because of the changes that occur because of evolution, species change to suit their surroundings. Humans, for example, may be traced back in a chain through several stages, ultimately resulting in the beginning of human life being apes. Because of this, F.R. Tennant devised a reformulation to the argument which tackles this subject. He said:
“The fitness of the world to be the home of living beings depends on certain primary conditions – astronomical, thermal, chemical, etc. an on the coincidence of qualities, apparently not causally connected with each other. The unique assembly of unique properties on so vast a scale makes the organic world comparable to an organism. It is suggestive of a formulative principle. The world is compatible with a single throw of dice and common sense is not foolish in suspecting the dice to have been loaded.”
This is known as the Anthropic Principle. This basically states that God arranged the different qualities of the universe in such a way as to allow life. In other words, God just started the ball rolling, and evolution (part of His master plan) allowed all that has taken place to bring species of life as to how we see them now. Another important reformulation is that put forward by Richard Swinburne in his book, the Existence of God, in which he suggests the universe was made without strict rules. To this extent man can forge his own future to a degree and either improve or harm the universe around him, without the need to blame God.
A criticism of this is the Epicurean Hypothesis, which states that originally the universe consisted of particles in random motion and state. Throughout time natural forces have evolved into an ordered system. As the universe is eternal it is inevitable this would eventually happen. Therefore, a designer did not create the universe, rather, it is the result of natural forces bringing random particles together through time.
However, there are many criticisms of the teleological argument. One of these is that not everything has a purpose – the appendix in a human serves no purpose. Another example is the whale having a pelvic bone that does nothing. Even if God invented the idea of evolution, as stated above, then why do things such as the appendix in a human still exist? If God created man in his own image then surely having an imperfect feature such as an appendix means that God himself is imperfect! (A topic too complex to go into detail in this essay.)
As well as imperfections physically in nature suggesting God not being all powerful, one must consider the idea that, although God created man in his own image, man still wages war with itself and with nature, and nature itself has disasters such as diseases or hurricanes. Surely such a benevolent God would not allow the horrors such as death camps or World War 2 to have happened? David Hume, in his book, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, suggested that the universe as we know it could have been just a trial run by a God, and its imperfection was realised by the God, and was therefore abandoned in the hope of making a better one. In this situation humans have created such horrors as mentioned above, and nature does what one may say as evil, as there is no overseeing deity to keep everything in order. Whilst on the idea, one may also consider there could be more than one God, and that quite possibly this universe was made by an elderly God. Since his or her death (who knows, there may be both genders! After all, the teleological argument states comparison with God as does Genesis – so surely there must be both male and female Gods who can reproduce) the universe has run its own course, steering through both good and bad. He sums this lack of oversight by stating:
“The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children.”
Hume goes on to criticise the fact that comparisons are, ultimately, unsound analogies. The comparisons do not work sufficiently to prove they have similar ends. Another important criticism is the idea that by drawing analogies, one must give God anthropomorphic qualities. This must be wrong as we are based after God, and not vice versa. Unpleasant features of nature suggest God is non-moral, or perhaps, building on the idea of a multitude of Gods, the universe was a joint effort by both a good and evil force. An accident could be the reason the universe came into being – anything so grand as the universe is likely to be viewed as having a telos to it.
Some believe leaps of faith have to occur in order for this argument to have any weight to it. Just because so many analogies can be drawn from nature, it does not mean there is a designer to nature. Also, even if there is a designer, this does not necessarily mean it is the Christian God. Assumptions are made when thinking about arguments like this – it is natural for a religious person to automatically think of their God as the creator of the universe, this may not be so.
As a conclusion to this argument it can be said that clearly there are many problems that need addressing for the teleological argument to even come close to being indisputable evidence for the existence of God. However, the reformulations do indicate that it does have a lot of weight in indicating towards God the creator, as they can be used to go around several criticisms of the argument. One of the main problems with this argument is that too many assumptions have to be made in order for the argument to work as one wants it to. One assumes, for example, that there is only one God, and that this was his only creation. It could be, as David Hume suggests, that there are many Gods, or this was just a botched attempt at a universe. Ultimately, although this argument is not indisputable, the amount of power it has in proving the existence of God depends on one’s personal beliefs on the matter.
