THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 1 PART ‘A’ This is also known as the teleological argument as it is concerned with purpose (Telos is Greek for end). It’s an ‘a posteriori’

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 1 PART ‘A’

This is also known as the teleological argument as it is concerned with purpose (Telos is Greek for end).

It’s an ‘a posteriori’ argument as it’s based on experience (through the 5 senses)

It is an inductive argument – arguing from the particular to the general (Metals a,b,c, d,e,f,g expand when heated, therefore ALL metals expand when heated).

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 2 The Design argument states that the universe is

not a result of mere chance, but of design. FOUR POINT ARGUMENT (essential):- 1/ The universe has order, purpose & regularity. 2/ The complexity of the universe shows

evidence of design. 3/ Such design implies a designer. 4/ The designer of the universe is God. The argument is in two parts:- 1/ Design QUA regularity. 2/ Design QUA purpose. Qua means, ‘as relating to’.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 3 Design QUA Regularity We observe the regular changing of the

seasons and the regularity among living and non living things on this planet and some philosophers conclude it cannot have come about by random chance.

St Thomas Aquinas (13C) in the last of his 5 ways identified that the way in which natural bodies act in a regular fashion to accomplish their end provides the evidence for the existence of an intelligent being. “From the governance of things.”

Aquinas regarded regularity as a proof of God

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 4 Some philosophers have observed how parts

of the universe seem to fit together as for some purpose and conclude that they could not have arrived at so perfect a fit randomly.

Aquinas also used Design QUA Purpose. He said, “Now, whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end unless it be directed.” He used the example of the archer (intelligent) directing an arrow (non-intelligent) to its target.

Aquinas based nearly all his ideas on the Greek, pre-Christian, Aristotle, but they didn’t always fit well with Christianity.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 5 Paley’s Design QUA Purpose William Paley (18 C – Archdeacon) put

forward his ANALOGY of a watch found in the middle of a field. We would conclude it must be designed by a watchmaker. He then compared it to the eyeball/world and as the eyeball/world is far more complicated than the watch, then it too, must have been designed – by God!

You don’t have to use the stone in his story (unless you use it in part B) as Paley was using that to compare the complexity of the watch!)

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 6 Paley had a second argument this was:

Design Qua Regularity: It was more sophisticated than Aquinas’s as

Paley had the advantage of the latest scientific developments. Paley based it on astronomy & Isaac Newton’s laws of motion.

He observed how regularly the planets were held in their orbits because of gravity.

He concluded an external agent, God, must have imposed order & regularity on the universe as a whole and on its parts.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 7 This notion of Just Right or the ‘Goldilocks Enigma’

was used by F R Tennant who developed the Anthropic Principle which investigates the strong nuclear force which holds the universe together.

Any slight change in this and the universe and life within it would have been unlikely to develop.

It had to be ‘Just Right’ This denies any randomness / chain of coincidences. Supporters claim the Anthropic Principle is the best

evidence for a designer – God. People like the way it seems to keep pace with

modern scientific ideas such as ‘Big Bang’.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 8 Tennant argued that God has designed the

universe including the mechanism of evolution. Tennant believed three things pointed to a

designer: 1/ The world can be analysed in a rational

manner. 2/ The inorganic world has provided the basic

necessities to sustain life. 3/ The progress of evolution towards the

emergence of intelligent human life. Tennant said we could all imagine a chaotic

universe, but because it is not chaotic shows evidence of design.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 9 Tennant also put forward the Aesthetic

argument to prove God’s existence. The world is ‘saturated in beauty’. He argued that humans have the ability

to appreciate beauty – art, music, literature.

Yet such an appreciation is not necessary for survival.

Therefore it is evidence of a divine creator as it cannot be a result of natural selection.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 10 Richard Swinburne accepted the Anthropic

Principle. He recognised the universe could easily have

been chaotic, but because it is not suggests design rather than chance

Swinburne decided the probability was more on the side of design than chance. (See Pascal’s Wager)

He concluded God is the simplest explanation This fits in with Ockham's’ Razor which states the

simplest solution is likely to be correct. Combined with other arguments strengthens the

Design argument (cumulative)

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 11 The Scottish Philosopher, David Hume

attacked the Design argument in his book ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’– 1779.

This book was in the form of an imaginary conversation between 3 characters: Demea, who represented traditional Orthodoxy (God is a mystery); Philo, the Empiricist sceptic (Hume) and Cleanthes, the ‘A Posteriori’ believer (Aquinas).

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 12 Hume stated: 1/ Humans only have understanding of things

they have created and this limited experience is not sufficient to come to similar conclusions about creation and the design of the universe.

Hume here highlighted the weakness of inductive arguments.

The more we use ANALOGIES to try to prove God, then the more anthropomorphic we make him and God ends up as a kind of ‘superman’ (made in our image).

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 13 2/ But if one accepted that human experience

was enough to conclude the universe was designed, there is no evidence that this designer is the God of Classical Theism.

THE FOLLOWING QUOTE IS THE BEST ONE:

“The world, for all he knows, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior model; and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity who afterwards abandoned it.”

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 14 3/ There is no evidence to support the

BENEVOLENT God of Classical Theism The very existence of evil in the world would

suggest a designer who is not the all Loving / Powerful God of Classical Theism.

4/ We cannot use God as an analogy as he transcends human understanding. It is more likely the universe, like machines, was designed by many gods or even a committee of gods.

5/ We should not liken the universe to a vast machine but to something like a vegetable or inert animal – something that grows of its own accord, rather than something made by hand.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 15 Charles Darwin’s theories of Natural selection &

evolution challenged the argument for design by providing an alternative mechanism.

He provided an explanation for the world without reference to God. He was a Christian who delayed publication of, “On the Origins of the Species by means of NL” for 20 years as he was worried about the effect it would have on people

Darwin argued that random variations which gave the best advantage resulted in the survival of the fittest member of that species.

Darwin’s book led many to claim that God was no longer necessary to explain the world.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 16 Immanuel Kant provides an interesting

argument AGAINST the Design argument. He said the Design Argument depended on

the assumption that there is design in the universe.

Kant argued that the universe may be in chaos, but because the way our minds organise our experiences, the world around us appears to be ordered (hints of the film ‘The Matrix’!!).

We impose order and design on the world ourselves and can never be certain of the reality of the situation.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 17 PART ‘B’

STRENGTHS None of the main protagonists (SPAT) base

their arguments on the BIBLICAL God of Creation, even though they were all Christians.

They base them on reasoned argument based on experience of the world and its contents and not on the biblical Genesis.

Tennant’s ideas are partly based on Darwin’s evolutionary theories; all Tennant is doing is putting God as the author of evolution.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 18 STRENGTHS Going back to Tennant, the Anthropic

Principle marries the Design argument with Darwin’s evolutionary theory rather well.

It says that evolution is part of God’s plan for the development of intelligent life.

Life could just as easily not have developed on Earth.

Supporters suggest nature may be compared to a machine that makes other machines, and, like all machines, it needed an intelligent designer.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 19 STRENGTHS: The Design argument is simple to understand. WE can see design in the universe for

ourselves David Hume admits the universe might have

been designed but he denies the Theistic God. Archbishop William Temple says the Design

Argument supports Natural Selection & Evolution – a designer is perfecting this world.

Hume’s argument for evil is countered by the theodicies of Augustine & Irenaeus.

.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 20 The term ‘Intelligent Design’ was later coined to

show God might be the designer. Michael Behe and William Demski attacked

evolutionary theory and so, by default, support the Design argument,

Behe based his argument on irreducible complexity where he says some complex organs existed which could not possibly be formed by successive additions.

He gave an example of the flagellum (the tail) of the prokaryote cell.

Darwin had already stated his theory would break down if this ever happened

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 21

STRENGTHS Swinburne, Ward and Polkinghorne all

support Tennant’s Anthropic Principle. They believe that evolution is

compatible with a cosmic intelligence who created the definite goal of consciousness for his creatures.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 22 STRENGTHS Arthur Brown (20 C) supported Paley’s

second, Regularity argument. Brown based his argument on the ozone

layer. He argued that the purpose of the ozone

layer, to filter out harmful UV rays in order to protect life, could not have happened by chance as it was ‘just right’ for the job.

Paul Davies coined the phrase, The Goldilocks enigma.”

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 23

THE STRENGTHS OF THE ARGUMENTS ARE COUNTERED BY THE WEAKNESSES

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 24 WEAKNESSES It could be argued that it is arrogant to

suppose the ozone layer that Brown used is there specifically for our protection.

It may be the case that we developed in light of the ozone layer and not the ozone layer in light of us.

For the believer, God might be the simplest explanation but God is another layer of reasoning so maybe he is not the simplest explanation for the non-believer, discrediting Ockham’s Razor.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 25 WEAKNESSES Tennant’s Aesthetic Argument breaks

down as beauty is subjective – “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

Beauty is a factor when we choose who we mate with. We do not choose ugly wives/husbands (unless they are very rich!).

Beauty is necessary for plants to attract bees for pollination.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 26

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 27 WEAKNESSES John Stuart Mill supported Hume on this third

argument on evil Mill, in his ‘dysteleological argument’, said that

because of all the suffering in the world, then the designer could not be all powerful, loving and knowing. If he had been then surely he would not have included suffering in his design.

Behe’s arguments are opposed by Dawkins’ scaffolding theory (Parts may another purpose)

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 28 The Epicurean Hypothesis argues that at the

time of creation the universe consisted of particles in random motion.

The initial state was chaotic, but gradually the natural forces evolved into an ordered pattern.

The universe is eternal and with unlimited time it was inevitable that a constantly ordered state would develop.

Therefore the universe wasn’t designed. Probably the only way the Epicurean

Hypothesis would be acceptable nowadays is within a ‘Multiverse theory’.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 29 WEAKNESSES The modern ‘Big Bang’ theory seems to

fit well with Tennant’s Anthropic Principle.

It offers some support for Darwin’s ideas.

But Darwin only deals in a time after life began, whereas Big Bang deals in a time before life began.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 30 Herbert Spencer coined the phrase. “The

survival of he fittest” to explain part of the process.

Richard Dawkins took Darwin’s ideas to an atheist conclusion and completely rejects any role for God in creation or evolution.

Dawkins says that natural selection gives the appearance of design and led to the mistaken belief in a designer.

He argues the variations were caused by random mistakes in the DNA molecules of any life-form.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 31 WEAKNESSES: Thomas McPherson used a similar argument

to Kant but based on language. He said, “How can we talk sensibly of the

existence of order, when to talk of order at all is to impose order?”

Like Kant, McPherson believes we impose order on to a possibly chaotic universe.

(Back to The Matrix - Check Jean Baudrillard’s ‘Simulacra and Simulation’)

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT 32 CONCLUSION - Whether we accept a designer

comes down to probabilities. Even Hume accepted the probability that the

universe was designed, but there was no proof that the designer was the God of classical theism.

Paul Davies agrees with Swinburne & sums it all up by stating that there is a reason for the organisation of the universe and that someone designed it and that someone MIGHT be God.

I BELIEVE that it is based on probability & individual judgement - so it can’t be conclusive.

It may point to a designer (Deist?) but not prove the God of Classical theism -an ‘Inductive Leap’ too far