The Teleological Argument
(William Paley)
The teleological argument, much like the cosmological argument, takes many forms but they all deal with the idea of design in the natural world. The design argument we will be examining today is the Watchmaker Analogy put forth by William Paley, an English clergyman, around the late 1700's in his work "Natural Theology".
Here it is in Paley's words:
"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there."
"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."
"Upon the whole; after all the schemes and struggles of a reluctant philosophy, the necessary resort is to a Deity. The marks of design are too strong to be gotten over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD."
Here is the argument broken down:
1: Watches are designed by humans.
2: Watches are ordered and complex.
3: The natural world is also ordered, complex, and seems to look designed.
4: By analogy the natural world is similar to a watch so the causes must be the same.
5: The natural world must have been designed.
6: Therefore a designer of natural world exists.
7: That designer is god.
If you have heard or seen any of the "intelligent design" propaganda you have a sense of what this argument is about. Now you know why they fight so hard to have their ideas taken seriously. If they can teach children that nature was designed it is a small step to convince them that the designer exists. Their religious motives lay bare.
However there are some very crippling problems with this type of argument.
Problem 1: Contradiction
The argument first assumes that a watch is different from a stone, which is naturally occurring, and that naturally occurring things are uncomplicated and random. It then says that since the natural world is so beautiful, complex, and ordered it too must have a designer. Thus, the argument gives nature two incompatible qualities. It is saying nature is random, uncomplicated, and common while at the same time beautiful, complex, and ordered.
Problem 2: How did you tell the watch was designed?
To a creationist god made everything. Everything is designed. There are no non-designed objects for us to experience. So how can the creationist look at both a watch and a stone, both of which were designed by god, and conclude that the watch was designed but the stone was not? They cannot. Truth is we infer design by comparing it with nature. If everything is designed then we have no frame of reference.
(Widmanstatten pattern in meteorite rock) (Pocket watch)
Problem 3: Infinite regress
If we are to draw a similarity between a watch and the universe lets follow through. Watches indeed have watch makers. Watchmakers have fathers. The fathers of watchmakers had fathers themselves... and on and on ad infinitum. Any god that is capable of making a clockwork universe such as our own must himself be incredibly complex and ordered and that functional complexity and order would suggest that god was himself designed. From this we could infer a super-god who designed the god of our universe... I hope everyone see's the futility of this form of thinking.
Problem 4: The blind watchmaker
"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." - Richard Dawkins 'The Blind Watchmaker'
Problem 5: Does a designer have to answer for the flaws in his design?
If we admit the universe and everything in it was designed, we must also admit that the problems and evils that exist were designed by the same. Think of the intricate fitting of means to ends that allow cancer to so perfectly infect the body, the unparalleled complexity in the cancers genetic code that allows the cancerous cells to reproduce, and the seemingly unstoppable way cancer takes the life of it's host. If all the beauty and order in nature gives credit to the creator and his benevolence the evil and chaos in nature dirties the creators character to a point where his best moral excuse is that he did not exist.
Problem 6: Which god?
Seems this problem will pop up for every argument. This argument, if it were in the least bit successful, would point toward an ambiguous deity. Perhaps one who died during the creation or one who doesn't care whatsoever about the affairs of men... not to mention every creator deity human beings have invented fits the god of this argument.
In conclusion this entire line of thought is predicated on a lack of imagination. It is one big
argument from incredulity fallacy. I don't know how this could have happened naturally therefore it was designed. A bit of humility and a dash or curiosity would serve humanity far batter than this teleological thinking.
Once again, Thank you for reading. Any comments, questions, or corrections are welcomed.
-Adam
