William Paley who was born 1743-1805, supported the teleological argument and came up with the watch analogy. Paley suggested that if you went for a walk in a Heath and found a rock, you conclude that it has been there forever and not think any more about it. Whereas if you found a watch on the ground, you could examine it and see all its moving parts and all its complexities. This would reveal that the watch’s parts were put together in a certain order and designed perfectly, so that it could work and achieve its purpose; to tell the time. Finally, this demonstrates that the watch must have had an efficient cause; a designer. Paley then went on to suggest that what would happen if the watch had an imaginary function of being able to produce other watches, in this case, you would have great admiration for the watchmaker. He concluded by saying that anyone who found the watch must come to the conclusion that the design of the watch implies the presence of an intelligent mind.
Similarly Paley says the same principle works for an eye, if you were to examine it, you would be able to see all its complex features it has in order for it to carry out its purpose; allow us vision. It has an iris which opens and closes depending on if it’s dark or light. Therefore you can apply natural or mechanical analogies to the universe. Paley’s design qua regularity argument comes on the back of some major changes in the way that the universe was understood. In 1687 Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of motion and gravity marking the movement into a ‘classical’ view of physics. The universe is so perfectly designed, with the ozone layer protecting us from the sun etc. There must have been a designer and this designer must have been God. For God is the only being that could possibly create the universe; he is omnibenevolent; omnipotent and omniscient.
Other supporters of the teleological argument include; Richard Swinburne (1934-present) who argues that various traditional design evidence, at least raise the probability of design, whether or not they make it actually probable. He takes science into account but states that the simplest answer is God (Ockham’s razor). He focuses on the simplicity instead of complexity and says the universe was designed by someone as it is unlikely to have just happened by chance. He believes that scientific discoveries provide good grounds for the belief in God and proposes the ‘card trick analogy’ where being dealt the perfect hand for bridge is low, but it is still possible. Such like the existence of God.
There is also Tennant (1866-1957) who talks about the Anthropic Principle (if the world had been slightly different we wouldn’t exist, we fit so well into it that it seems to have been designed for us) and says only God can provide an accurate explanation for why humans can contemplate the universe and appreciate the beauty of something and their place within the universe, and human morality. He says that human life is the result of God’s plan or at least the current stage of Gods plan. Overall, Tennant states that the universe is not chaotic and was designed in such a way that the evolutionary process would create an environment, which intelligent design could exist.
In conclusion, many philosophers have argued that the universe has not come about into its present state of its own accord, but that the universe demonstrates clear evidence of an intelligent designer behind its existence. Therefore this intelligent designer, could easily be God and even though we do not know this for a fact, the evidence shown is a clear indicator that there is a design and there is a possibility this designer may be God.