‘We see that things that lack knowledge such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.’
What Aquinas means by this is that objects like trees, stars and other non-intelligent bodies do the same thing day in day out. But if we look at their functions in great depth we can see that without them doing their own concise job it would be hard for man and animals to exist. Let’s look at the acorn tree for example, if it didn’t drop its acorns in the autumn then animals such as squirrels would die over the winter as they would not have any food to take with them during hibernation.
‘As the arrow is directed by the archer,’ is a very famous phrase that Aquinas said, meaning that this world is the arrow and God is the archer. The arrow would not go and hit its target without someone directing the arrow. Then if a simple arrow cannot go and hit a simple target then how would a universe as complex as ours come in to being by accident?
But one of the main people during the past millennium to argue for the existence of god was probably William Paley (1743-1805). He is well remembered for using the analogy of the watch. He says that the watch has many little mechanisms working together in tandem, at precisely the exact moment. Paley here is using the argument from an effect to its cause, meaning that there must be a cause to this watch: the watchmaker. The watch had a creator and therefore the world must have a creator. The world also has many little mechanisms in it that make the world survive, without them we would all be dead. If a simple object like a watch needed a creator then obviously the world must have a creator. We can say that this analogy will work because the two things that are being compared are similar; if they weren’t then the analogy will never work.
Today, science and technology has moved on considerably. There has been a huge increase in scientific discoveries, and this in turn has led to the support of the argument, rather than disproving the argument. A French biologist named Le Comte de Nuoy published a book called ‘Human Destiny’. In it he said that there could be absolutely no chance that life came into being by accident. Also relating to the theory of evolution and the development on human organisms, he said that there could be no chance that this was an accident, but rather required some overall direction. He also talks about the anti chance factor; God. Saying that if it was down to chance then we would not be here, it is literally impossible.
A.E Taylor argued that nature plans for the animals and humans in advance and that there must be more than physical laws to account for the improbability of life. He says that the planning that nature does cannot be happening by accident every year, but there has to be someone directing this, like ‘the arrow being directed by the archer.’
Also in 1986 the bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore, wrote a book called ‘The probability of God,’ in it he argued that the design of the universe is too good for it to come into existence by chance.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in his book ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ opposed the design argument. He said that God did not create the universe, but he just gave order to it. In other words he was just the architect of the universe. For example, there is a huge rock, this is meant to be the earth, and later a man comes and carves out a sculpture from it, this is meant to be the role that God played in the universe, according to Kant. He’s saying that the universe was always there but God just carved it out and made it better, he added the finishing touches to something that was already there. Even though Kant didn’t believe in the design argument he still thought it had some sway and said that ‘this proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect.’
Before Paley, David Hume (1711-1776) wrote his ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’. He was not totally against the existence of God, but was rather a critique of the design argument. He did not directly criticize the works of other people but he subtly added his own views on them in his book. In this book Hume puts forward the arguments for and against the existence of God. The criticism is Hume’s real view. Hume says that the world is one great machine filled with many little machines and that they are all working together in order for the world to keep functioning properly. This argument is mainly based around the fact that similar effects imply similar causes. This we cannot criticize at all, because it is true. He says that man just lives in this planet; they can’t work out the existence of life. But he says that because man is intelligent (as they had just created the pocket watch), then the creator must have the same intelligence as man but on a much larger scale. Therefore we have an intelligent deity. But as similar effects imply similar causes, then creations of man such as houses can be compared to those that are God made. He says that the world can be compared to a house or a group of houses, therefore the world is produced by a human like designer.
The people that have been mentioned are those who mainly are for the existence of God. But what are the actual strengths of the design argument? For starters we can say that Paley’s argument was a real strength. As he used the analogy of the watch. We know that similar objects can be compared, therefore his argument worked really well.
Also now that science and technology has moved on considerably, it is finding new answers everyday that point to the existence of God. Many of the people that have criticized the design argument were around a long time ago, when science and technology was still at a very basic level. Therefore many of the things that they figured out could have been wrong.
Another thing is that atheists base their arguments around Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’. This even today with the advancement of science and technology has not yet been proved, or even parts of its.
But I think that as us theists believe in a God, it is not up to us to question his authority. After all he is meant to be divine and we will never be able to understand him ‘as he is beyond our comprehension’ and also our ‘level of thinking and intellect’ are far too small for us to understand God!
We know that Hume did not really agree with the design argument. His main criticism is that no-one has actually witnessed the making of the world. We have all seen a house being built, so therefore we can quite confidently say that this house had a designer and creator. But can we say the same about the Earth? This is once again using the cause and effect argument to put forward the argument.
Also how can we be so sure that this world is so perfect, as we have not yet been able to compare this world with any others. As far as we know this world can be something of a ‘blotched job’ compared to other worlds. You can usually determine the quality of a house due to past experiences, but once again we cannot determine the quality of this world as no-one has past experiences of this or any other worlds.
Another criticism is that if the universe is the creation of a complex cosmic mind, then who designed the designer? There has to be an answer to this. One answer is that there is no creator but that this world did come into existence by chance. As it was said that if you left a group of monkeys in a room with typewriters, for infinite time, then they would produce the works of Shakespeare! This is probably quite hard to believe, but as they are there for infinity, who knows what could happen could happen!
Another criticism is the issue of evil. Evil exists and therefore if a God did exist, why doesn’t he do something about it? Doesn’t he care about his creation? As Hume said, ‘This world is very faulty and imperfect…….it is the production of old age in some superannuated deity, and ever since his death has run on from the first impulse and active force which he gave it.’ I think we can all draw our own conclusions from what he meant!
Also the more you press the analogy of the watch and the earth, then the more you are making God human rather than divine. As the watch had a designer, therefore the world must have a designer on the same scale, as similar effects imply similar causes.
Darwin's theory of evolution also says that given infinite time, all possible combinations of atoms and molecules etc. can happen. Hence randomness can produce this Earth.
Darwin also argues that there is no actual elements of design present in the world.
How can you say that the world has been designed, when you have not actual seen it being designed?
We have no certain reason to believe that the world will carry on behaving in an orderly way. It just may be a ‘brute fact’ that this world came into existence totally by accident!
I personally think that the design argument is actually there so that theists can base their belief in God from it. Every argument will always have a down side to it, nothings perfect. Religions have their own explanations to this answer, and it is up to us lot to pick out which we think is right: does God actually exist or are we here by accident? The choice is yours.
‘What could be more clear or obvious when we look up to the sky and contemplate the heavens, than that there is some divinity of superior intelligence?’ (Lucilius)
Cicero (106-43 BC) De Natura Deorum