the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that
its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose. E.g. that
they are so formed and adjusted to produce motion, and that motion
so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different
parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size
from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order
than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have
been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered
the use that is now served by it.” William Paley
What William Paley meant by this was that both the watch and the world had a creator…that the world and the watch had a design, which produced its purpose. If the design of either of these two had been different, they would not have worked or produced what it was supposed to. This proved to Paley that the world was not a coincidence and that it had been designed or created by God.
Paley also believed that just by looking at the world around us, design is everywhere. In nature things compliment each other. A good example is how the bees use flowers for nectar and the flowers use the bees for fertilization. Here nature works harmoniously together. This, for Paley, proves that all this could not have not been designed or created.
There are many problems with Paley’s teleological theory:
One could be that even if this argument does conclude that the universe had a creator, this does not necessarily mean that it still exists. In the argument nothing implies that this creator or God must be eternal or have a non physical existence.
Another weakness is the fact that Paley used a weak analogy to try and prove his theory. The more similarities between the two things being compared the stronger the analogy. A watch and the world however have very few similarities and therefore the analogy is weak.
All man made objects are created out of pre–existing materials. Using Paley’s analogy, we have to conclude that the creator also made the universe out of pre-existing materials. This makes the creator, merely a builder.
All man made objects have been built by physical bodies
All the man-made objects we have encountered were built by beings with physical bodies. Using this analogy, we must conclude that the Builder had a physical body. So we can conclude that it wasn't a spirit, but rather a physical being that is the Builder of our universe. Furthermore, all builders in our experience had a beginning themselves as individual beings, so we can conclude that the Builder had a beginning.
Charles Darwin unknowingly challenged Paley’s teleological argument with his book the origin of the species. In this book it describes a theory which talks of evolution and that animal’s evolve if the changes suit their survival better. This damages Paley’s argument because if the world evolved in this way there is not need for a God that involves himself in the world because it is just a case of survival of the fittest. Also if every being evolved from some lesser creature where did humans evolve from? The obvious conclusion which people jump to is of course chimpanzees, but if this is true where does the creation story in genesis fit in? If Genesis is wrong how valid is the rest? Does this theory destroy the idea that we are God’s chosen people with whom we have a special and unique bond?
David Hume suggest that Paley was bias towards his own faith. He says that Paley, being an Archbishop brought him to the conclusion that the Creator God must be the same Christian-Judeo God. Hume also suggests that there may be more than one creator just as there is more than one watchmaker contributing to a finished watch. Hume thought that Paley’s analogy of the world to a watch was also weak as the universe is very unlike a piece of clockwork machinery. This reinforces what I was saying earlier about the analogy having very little similarities.
John Stuart Mill took a different approach to disprove Paley’s argument. He suggested that if somebody had designed the world than this designer must be evil and misery wishing upon earth’s inhabitants. He backs this up with the fact that in nature animals’ murder, rape and struggle to survive in a tough environment. If we were to murder or rape the government would punish us, as these actions are considered evil. From this he deduces that if there is a God he designed the world with misery in mind for us, Mill on the other hand uses his theory as his prove that the world is unordered and therefore was not designed by an ultimate being.
