The first part of the argument – design qua regularity looks at design relating to the order and regularity seen in the universe. Supporters of the argument see this order as evidence in itself of a designer at work. An example that could be used is a formal garden showing evidence of a gardener due to the order, lack of weeds and arrangement of flowers in the borders, therefore showing there is order and regularity evident in the universe, such as the rotation of the planets and natural laws. Philosophers, such as Paley come to the conclusion that this could not have occurred by random chance. To sum up it is the argument that states the universe appears to be behaving in accordance with order or rule.
The second part of the argument – design qua purpose, the theory that everything has been designed to for fill some purpose. It looks at the evidence of design in a slightly different way. It looks at the way in which parts of the universe seem to fit together for some sort of purpose. The universe is compared to a man-made machine, in which a designer fits the parts together in a certain way for a specific purpose. An example given is of an over – head projector, where the parts are fitted together in order to produce sound and receive pictures. The projector would not function in the appropriate way if the parts had just been fitted together in a random manner. Similarly, it seems there are incredibly complex designs in nature that must have been fitted together by a designer for a specific purpose, such as the tides, the seasons and the order of the planets. The natural world seems to fulfil its purpose well and further credits design.
William Paley put forward a very famous version of the argument in his book, ‘Natural Theology’ and used both parts of the argument – design qua regularity and qua purpose. His first part of the argument was design qua purpose and was put forward in the simple analogy of a watch. He said that if we were crossing a heath and came across a watch we would conclude that all the parts fitted together for a purpose (to produce motion in order to tell the time) and had not come into existence by chance, and compared it to finding a stone,
‘…when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive – what we could not discover
in a stone – that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose…’
An intelligent person would then conclude that the watch had a designer. The watch demands a watchmaker, and similarly the universe demands a designer because of the way the way in which things fit together for a purpose. Paley understands that we may not fully understand the design of the universe, but he would maintain that you do not need to fully understand something to infer a designer. For instance one may not fully understand how an over head projector works but one could still infer a designer.
Paley also used the intricate mechanisms of the body to illustrate the same point, focusing particularly on the eye and the way it is adapted for sight and the fact we have two eyes to further enhance our sight. All the different parts of the eye co-operate to produce sight. He believed the eye was designed for seeing and the complex design indicates an intelligent designer over random chance.
He compares a fish eye with a human eye, it follows the laws of nature to see under water, showing variation and brilliant design. Similarly with a telescope it is perfectly designed in sync with the laws of nature to see far out into the universe.
A final example he used was the adaptations of animals in order for them to survive, such as a bird’s wings to fly or a fish’s fins to swim. William Paley concluded that, this evidence could only be the result of a ‘designing creator’ who he believed was God.
The second part of Paley’s argument – design qua regularity uses evidence from astronomy along with Newton’s laws of motion and gravity to prove that there is design in the universe. Paley particularly focussed on the rotation of the planets in the solar system, how they all obey the same universal laws, and how they hold their orbits because of gravity. This could have not occurred by chance, and from this Paley concluded that an external agent must have imposed order on the universe as a whole, and that this agent must be God. The Laws of motion clearly demonstrate control led principle to the universe as opposed to randomness.
In conclusion the design argument uses the evidence from the world to conclude that there must have been a designer and that this designer is God.
Paley used an analogy of a watch, it could just as easily be modernised to comparing an eye with a sophisticated auto – focus camera, or engineers efforts in making robots. Using design qua purpose and also design qua regularity, where he uses evidence from astronomy and Newton’s laws. Although it may not necessarily convert an atheist in believing in God it may help a religious believer in cementing his faith in God by practical reasoning.