The Classical form of the argument was put forward by Thomas Aquinas who states “there must be some intelligent being who directs all things to the purpose for which they exist. This being we call god.”
The most famous form of the teleological argument was Paley’s watch. In the argument Paley likens compares a stone which one cannot see an obvious design and a watch. When one looks at a watch one can see evidence of a design, which would suggest a watchmaker. In the same way Paley suggests we can see the world shows signs of being designed, which would suggest that there is a designer, i.e. God.
Q2) What are the strengths of the design argument? Comment on some of the criticism raised against the design argument (10)
Immanuel Kant has described the argument as the oldest, clearest and most reasonable
argument for the existence of God, even though he himself found it unconvincing.
There does seem to be an order, a design, a purpose to the world and the things within it. It therefore stands to reason that something must have created this order, design, purpose for how else would they have come into existence?
However, we must be careful that we do not turn the argument from design upside down. For example human arms were not designed to be at the right height for door handles, it was the other way around. Similarly eggs were not designed to fit egg cups it was the other way around.
Also as science develops it has raised more questions. Darwin’s studies have suggested that the world and nature were not simply created instantly but have evolved over millions of years. Nature has proved to be red in tooth and claw which has resulted in many millions of painful years of evolution.
Science can also be used to support the design argument. There is nothing to say that the process of evolution is not the way in which God decided to create his design.
More recently the Chaos Theory is beginning to undermine Newton’s view of the universe as a predictable machine. We now know that the universe is not made up of building blocks obeying the ‘laws of nature’, but of waves and impulses who’s activity is anyone’s guess, even when they continue to provide a coherent whole.
If a pattern does exist, could it simply be nature’s way of surviving? Those who fit the pattern will survive and those who do not will perish. Who can say whether humans are not the survivors of a million failed worlds? If God does stands behind such a world, he is something far more mysterious than simply a clever watchmaker.
Also, if some of the universe seems well designed, there is much of it which is bad design, such as painful childbirth and death by mischance. The question must be asked, which grand designer would create a race of dinosaurs to walk the Earth for 140 million years and then simply destroy them? If natural disasters are added to this (earthquake, plague, volcanic eruption etc) one could question the wisdom and the goodness of the Designer.
Even if one could prove the existence of a Designer who is to say (as the Scottish philosopher David Hume asked) whether the Designer is not plural, or stupid or downright evil? Or whether the order, which we see, is imposed on the chaos in which we live by humans who are insistent in finding a pattern and a meaning?
With such considerations in mind more recent forms of the teleological argument such as those proposed by F. R. Tennant and Richard Swinburne are less than absolute than those of the past.
What we can say is that an intelligently designed universe cannot be proved, however, it is more probable than a universe, which is ruled by blind forces or by chance. How can the sheer orderliness, uniformity and predictability of our world be simply put down to a coincidence?
Although a purposeful Designer cannot be proved to exist it is a more plausible and satisfactory explanation of the evidence that we have than any other.
