William Paley’s takes on the design argument in an analogy form which in its most basic form states if a watch is complex then it must have a maker if we compare to a human eye which is more complex then it proves that an intelligent creator thus exist. His argument is logically persuasive thought Natural theology. As for David Hume’s, “Dialogues concerning Natural Religion,” contra argument he finds various flaws in Paley’s argument.(need to explain) What I established after reading these two arguments is that it is difficult to come to a conclusion about the existence of god. Paley’s and Hume’s arguments are both inductive arguments discussing the existence of an intelligent creator, god, a topic that can never be proven to be true and absolute. …show more content…
. . all the organized parts of the works of nature” (CITE) For example, if we take on something as complex as our universe would we not wonder if there is intelligent design behind it. All of our planets in our solar system are said are said to be formed naturalistically from the same cloud of gas and dust that surrounded the sun more than 4.5 billion years ago. How is it that only earth got the perfect mix of all the elements needed for life. It is our understanding that the origin of life on earth can be traced back to the impact of asteroids which collided on earth. Dr. Stuart Clark, an astrophysics, states “[T]here are subtle differences that are proving tough to explain. For example, the mix of oxygen isotopes in chondritic meteorites does not match those found on Earth. So far no one knows why, but since oxygen is the most abundant element in the Earth’s crust...it is a mystery that cannot be ignored” (CITE). We know that our distance from the sun provides the right amount of heat and light to make the planet habitable, but that alone is not enough for the origin of life. Without the unique mix of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and Sulphur that makes up living things, and without liquid water on the earth’s surface, life as we know it could not have evolved. Chemically speaking …show more content…
What if our choice wasn’t a single answer could it be possible to select both. As a biochemistry student and a Christian I have taken many evolution classes and at the same time sat in church having both of these teachings and ideals contradicted. I believe that is possible to believe in both God and evolution. I do not believe that our existence just happened or that we came from organic matter and later evolved into complex mammals. The human body is too complex, when we look at the simplest level, the cells, we come to find we are not simple even at the cellular level. Cells have different tasks yet work together with the rest of the body and as we move levels of organization in the body we see how the human body is one complex machine and, like the watch, it needs to work together with other parts. At the same time I believe in evolution to some extent we have been taught about Galapagos Island and have seen biological evolution slowly through the ages. In religion, we are taught to live by faith to believe in God and to believe evolution as god’s test of faith, yet through reason we are taught only to believe concrete facts. God and Evolution today is either seen as black or white there is no gray in between. There are many questions and answers in today’s society that are not black