The Teleological Argument
The Teleological Argument is more simply known as the argument from Design. It essentially consists of the following premises: the universe shows extensive evidence of purpose and design. This quality of purpose and design that one witnesses in the universe is not present by accident or chance. Therefore, there must be a Divine Designer of the Cosmos. In short, the presence of order in the design of the universe requires that rationality lead us to conclude the existence of a Divine Designer.
The Argument found popular expression in William Paley’s (1743-1805) Analogy of the Watchmaker. Paley hypothesized that one day you are walking across your lawn only to look down and find for the first time a watch. Perplexed and intrigued, you pick up the watch to examine it more closely. You look at the watch face and see the hands moving in synchronization with one another. Still inquisitive, you examine the backside of the watch, removing the cover to find a number of cogs of varying shapes and sizes working together in perfect harmony in order to keep time. Paley posits the logical leap that because there is such a watch with intricate design, it could not have popped into existence by chance. Rather, the existence of design in the watch requires that there be a watchmaker. In Paley’s day the natural conclusion was therefore that there must be a Divine Designer who has orchestrated the order and design of the cosmos.
Objections: The Teleological Argument is not without flaw however. The following objections have been proposed as challenges to the legitimacy of the Argument.
1) Premise one, that there is evidence of purpose and design in the universe, is challenged by the reality that this is not always so. Just as there are what are termed “Teleological” elements (elements of order) in the universe, there are “Dysteleological” elements (evidences of disorder) as well. These break down into two classical categories: Natural Evil and Moral Evil. Natural Evil consists of things such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods for example. Moral Evil is demonstrated in realities such as murder, rape and other acts of inhumanity performed by one’s fellow humans. If we attribute order to “Him” or “It” or “Her” do we not also have to attribute disorder to “Him” or “It” or “Her”?
2) Premise two, that this purpose and design in the cosmos did not happen by accident, is challenged by the fact that today we have other possible explanations of this order rather than just a Divine Designer. Paley’s argument was pre-Darwinian. There was no other explanation of the origin of this perceived order and purpose in the universe beyond God. However, this is no longer the case. With Darwin and his theory of natural selection, there appeared on the scene an alternative explanation of the source of cosmic order and design. Whether the individual endorses this view or not is beside the point. What matters is that Natural Selection does in provide an alternative interpretation of the source of design and purpose in the universe.
3) Premise three, that there must be a Divine Designer as a logical requirement of this order and purpose, is also flawed. Yet it is flawed in another fashion. If we grant the potential existence of the Divine Designer for the sake of argument then what does this tells us about the nature of the Divine Designer? What is “He” or “She” or “It” like? The argument fails to give us much information about the nature of this Metaphysical entity. Consequently, those with a religious agenda attached to rationally legitimating the belief in Theism had better beware.
