A teleological argument, or argument from design, is an argument for
the existence of God or a creator based on (perceived_evidence) of
order, purpose, design, or direction—or some combination of these—in
nature.
1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive,
apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have
occurred randomly or accidentally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created
by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or
purposeful being.
3. God is that sentient, intelligent,
wise, or purposeful being.
4. Therefore, God exists.
Formal objections and counterarguments
Complexity does not imply design
The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer
the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. The
teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must
have been designed. It is argued that this is non-sequitur logic. Life
or objects are described as "orderly" or "ordered", which implies that
an intelligent designer has ordered them. However, in reality, there
are examples of systems that are non-random or ordered simply because
it is following natural physical processes, for example diamonds or
snowflakes.
The design claim is often attacked as an argument from ignorance,
since it is often unexplained or unsupported, or explained by
unscientific conjecture. Supporters of intelligent design assume that
natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties,
therefore both must be designed. However, different objects can have
similar properties for different reasons, such as stars and light
bulbs. Proponents must therefore demonstrate that only intelligent
design can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid.
A designed organism would, on the face of it, be in contradiction to
evolutionary theory. As most professional biologists support the
theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection, they
reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an
alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better
explanation with more supporting evidence. Living organisms obey the
same physical laws as inanimate objects. A range of chemical reactions
could take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and
ways of interacting. Over very long periods of time self-replicating
structures could arise and later form DNA. This has in fact been
demonstrated artificially via the Avida program, which can construct
complex programs without being given any design (similar programs have
had similar results with building machines). Thus biologists commonly
view the design argument as an unimpressive argument for the existence
of a god.
Advocates of design have responded to this objection by pointing out
that information theory demonstrates that DNA is a "code," and is
therefore not analogous structurally to a snowflake or crystal as the
written pages of a book would not be. They also claim that no natural
process has ever created a code, and that explanations put forward of
the origins of DNA or gradual change are often couched in vague terms
such as, for example simply "arising" or "forming" without offering
any explanation as to how the thing arose or formed, and that this is
unscientific.[citation needed] This argument, however, takes liberties
with the definition of "code" and as such, is often considered to be
an example of the logical error of equivocation. It may also be the
error of reification; i.e., of treating a linguistic metaphor or
analogy such as "code" as a real object or state. And it is a fallacy
of petitio principii (begging the question), since it assumes the very
thing that it concludes: that DNA is not a consequence of a natural
process (if it is, then of course it is false that "no natural process
has ever created a code"). And it is argumentum ad ignorantiam
(argument from ignorance), as it concludes from the lack of a natural
explanation for the origin of DNA that there is none, misplacing the
burden of proof, which rests with the party who makes the argument
(for supernatural origin, in this case).
Does not prove the existence of God
Another argument states that even if the argument from design proved
the existence of a powerful intelligent designer, it would not prove
that the designer is God. Voltaire observed:
[F]rom this one argument, I cannot conclude anything more, except that
it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has prepared and
shaped matter with dexterity; I cannot conclude from this argument
alone that this being has made the matter out of nothing or that he is
infinite in any sense [i.e. that he is God].
It has also been pointed out that the argument relies on a cultural
context of monotheism when it claims to prove the existence of a
single, supreme creator Being. In the context of a polytheistic
culture, however, the argument could just as easily be used to argue
for the existence of gods (in the plural) — a group of intelligent
supernatural designers. In David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural
Religion, the character Philo argued, amidst other counterarguments to
the teleological argument, that there "could have been a committee of
deities."
Contradictory premises lead to an infinite regress
Some argue that even if the first and second premises are accepted,
the implied designer (Y) might be an unknown force or mere demiurge,
not God as God is commonly understood. It is argued in defense that
the outside force through which Y came into being might then be
explained as a more powerful being resulting in either an omnipotent
being or infinite regression.
Critics such as Richard Dawkins often argue that the teleological
argument would apply to the designer, arguing any designer must be at
least as complex and purposeful as the designed object (in Dawkins'
words, "The Ultimate 747", a reference to the probability of a
windstorm sweeping through a junkyard and constructing a 747). This,
they say, would create the absurdity of an infinite series of
designers. However, the counter-argument of an "undesigned designer,"
akin to Aristotle's uncaused causer, is common. This argument,
however, is incomplete as it does not indicate why the designer can be
undesigned but the universe cannot.
One version of the argument postulates that the designer does not have
any properties that would define Him and is singularly simple (yet
willful). Creation then happens ex nihilo — not as a cause and effect
from the designer (meaning, a change in the creation does not
necessitate a change in the Creator, but the Creator certainly is the
source of the changes happening in the creation and of the whole
creation's existence every second). This doesn't explain, however, why
such a designer is better than simply "nothing" out of which
everything was born ex nihilo.
The proponents of the argument note that such a designer is not
"better" than nothing as far as the above explanation goes. The above
version of the argument simply states that the counter-argument of
infinite designs is fallacious in the case when the designer itself
does not have complex properties or design which would need to be
imparted on Him by a previous cause. The choice between creatio ex
nihilo from literally nothing and from singular yet willful Creator is
outside of this argument. If one believes that the Creator must exist
(e.g., from teleological, cosmological, ontological or traditional
arguments), however, he is not to be stumped by the "infinite designer
series" counter-argument in case the said Creator is simple and
undifferentiated.
The proponents of the design further argue that it is better because
although the designer has no properties which would define or limit
Him, He has a singular Will that is able to bring creation about --
this makes the creation a willful and therefore a non-random process
infused with purpose. This is expressed by a statement of "He and His
Will [or Wisdom] are One". In other words, the designer does not have
characteristics that would be separate from Him and create a
divisiveness within Him. As a result, the designer has no need to have
an earlier source that would design Him (and impart upon Him some
properties including the property of existence); yet, He is capable of
designing and producing the Universe, in which His intelligent design
would be visible (or capable of being inferred) because in His
Essence, ability to create does not exist as a definite force but
merely as a possibility which is then instantiated. If such a creation
happens constantly (in other words, the world does not exist by itself
but constantly depends on the Will of the Creator to exist), each
moment of existence becomes divinely important. (This version of the
argument is expressed in many philosophical works of Judaism and is
especially accentuated in Kabbalah and stemming from it Chassidism, in
particular, Chabad Chassidism.)
Inconsistencies in the 'Design' of the Universe
Whilst the Universe may at first seem be purposeful and ordered, upon
closer inspection its true function becomes questionable. Scientists
such as Richard Dawkins attack the claim that the Universe serves any
actual function, claiming that the Universe merely 'mimics' purpose.
For example, predators seem perfectly 'designed' to catch their prey,
whilst their prey seem equally well 'designed' to evade them.
Likewise, noticeable inconsistencies in the design of organisms have
been brought to attention by critics of the teleological argument,
such as the wasteful method of urea disposal utilized by humans, as
well as the structure of the human spine. Some use such arguments to
point towards natural selection as a 'blind' biological designer, as
opposed to God.
Noncoherence
George H. Smith, in his book Atheism: The Case Against God, points out
what he considers to be a fatal flaw in the argument from design
Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How
could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the
basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects
and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only
to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from
natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole
was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between
artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those
characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce
evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we
first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a
supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of
conscious planning. (p. 268)
Other issues
Recently, the teleological argument has become the subject of
controversy because of its close relationship to the Intelligent
design movement, which uses a variant of the teleological argument
while claiming scientific credibility. The controversy is closely
related to the perennial debate between proponents of theistic and
"deistic" conceptions of God.
For example, it is argued that supernatural events cannot be
falsified. There is no empirical (and therefore scientific) way to
test for creation per se. To illustrate this, Robert Todd Carroll said
"the universe would look the same to us whether it was designed or
not." (Going further, scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Victor
Stenger have argued at book length that the universe looks as we
should expect it to if there is no God.) This type of argument can be
taken as a counterargument to the Intelligent Design version of the
teleological argument. Further in this context, natural scientists
would say with virtual unanimity that to invoke supernatural
explanations does not add to our understanding of the world. Since
"supernatural" events are by definition above nature (super-natural),
they cannot be considered a scientific alternative to any theory of
natural science. (see also: God of the Gaps, Faith and rationality.)
A common question arises that intends on making our theories on the
origin of life a matter of subjectivity: "Which is more believable?"
or "Which one requires more faith?" Both sides would probably admit
that whatever is more believable is not necessarily true. However, if
faith is taken to mean a belief that transcends evidence against that
belief, belief in evolution is not a matter of faith due to the
considerable evidence in its favour. "Which is more believable?" might
be considered an irrelevant question as belief is subjective — what is
believable for one is unbelievable to another. The question might be
rephrased: "if one objectively studies the arguments in favour of
intelligent design, and one does the same for the scientific theory of
evolution, which one of these theories is more useful and logical as
an explanation, and better supported by evidence, and therefore 'most
believable'?" (see also: Pascal's wager) But the usefulness of this
formulation as a criterion is itself depended on determining what is
meant by usefulness. For example, do we consider the moral usefulness
of the theory as evidence? Proponents of religion argue for that as
part of the whole; opponents find it irrelevant. Is there a first
principle by which all can agree on what out to be the criterion for
usefulness?
Although intelligent design is often contrasted with evolution, from
some religious perspectives there is no inherent contradiction between
the two. Certain religious perspectives find nothing illogical about
believing in a creator-deity who purposed evolution to propagate the
emergence of life on earth. This position is becoming increasingly
accepted today — indeed, to illustrate, Pope John Paul II put forward
a position of exactly this kind. See also: Evolution and the Roman
Catholic Church. Some of the official positions in other religious
faiths have agreed with this basic view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
