Phil 110
Heter

Lecture Two: The Argument from Design by Paley

[1] Overview.
William Paley argued that the universe is so complex that it must have been designed by a higher power. Paley compares the natural universe to a watch. The complexity of the watch proves that it must have been designed. Such a meticulous machine could not have arise by chance. Since the natural universe is far more complex than a watch (think of a human heart), the natural universe must have a designer that is very powerful. This designer must be all powerful; thus the designer must be God.

Paley’s argument has been revived in the past five years under the name of “Intelligent Design.” The Intelligent Design Argument is exactly the same as Paley’s argument, with only one exception. The Intelligent Design Argument concludes that “a higher power of some sort, that we might call an ‘intelligent designer’ must exist.” But the argument does not call the ‘intelligent designer’ God.

[2] Note on terms: “Teleological.”
The Argument from Design has two different names. The argument is also called the “Teleological Argument.”

The word “teleological” comes from the Greek word “telos” which means “end” or “purpose.”

Paley believes that the universe has a purpose (telos) just like a watch has a purpose (to tell time). For example, the purpose of a human heart is to pump blood.

[3] The Argument from Design

Premise 1.If an object has a design then it must have a designer. (A watch, for example, could not have come into existence without a designer.)

Premise 2. Nature has a design. (For example, the human heart has a specific design and function.)

Conclusion 1.Therefore nature has a designer.

Conclusion 2.The designer of nature is God.

We can walk through these premises. Premise One is the major premise of the argument. It instructs us to look at something that is unknown to us and determine if there is any kind of “design” in that thing. Paley’s main example is a watch. We all recognize that the gears of a watch are designed to turn hands in order that we know what time it is. But the premise asserts something very strong at this point: It says that any object that has design must have a designer.

Premise Two of the argument claims that nature has a design. One supporting example would be the organs of the human body. The human eye has a clear purpose: to allow the body to see. For all (or nearly all) of the organs of the human body we can give a similar explanation.

The second premise also asserts that nature as a whole has a design. This is a bit harder to prove than each organ having a function. But think of the oxygenation cycle. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. Humans (and all animals with lungs) do the opposite: we inhale oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. This cycle is a perfect fit and shows a design.

[4] Validity.
This argument has two conclusions. The first one appears to follow logically from the premises. In other words, given just the first conclusion, the argument is logically valid.

However, there is a second conclusion. The second conclusion makes a logical leap from the existing argument. The leap is the same one described in the previous lecture on the cosmological argument. How do we know that the designer of the universe is the Christian God?

I believe that the designer of nature might not be perfect. If I am correct then there is a logical leap from saying that God created the universe to saying that God is perfect. I would further prove my point by showing that there are many flaws in the universe (pain, cancer, murder, rape and torture), which a perfect God would not allow.

[5] Soundness.
A sound argument is both valid and has true premises. A true premise is one that is factually accurate. An argument can flow together logically and yet lack true premises. Let me give you an example.

Premise One: All men can sew. Premise Two: Prof. Heter is a man. Conclusion: Therefore, Prof. Heter can sew.

This argument is valid, but not sound. It is valid because it flows together logically. But the first premise is factually flawed. Not all men can sew.

Back to the design argument: Are all the premises true? (True means “factually accurate.” True is the opposite of false.)

There are serious doubts about both premises. Let’s take premise one: if an object has a design then it must have a designer.

Darwinian evolution is an objection to premise one. Go back to my example of the oxygen cycle. Darwin would say that the reason we have a perfect fit between oxygen using life and carbon dioxide using life is because of survival of the fittest. In other words, design did come about without forethought and without an overseer who constantly took part in the world that he (or she or it) created. So the first objection can be boiled down to this:

• Not all complex objects have designers. Nature has a complex design, but this design came about through random variation and selection of the fittest.

Now we can see that this same objection applies to premise two.

But there are separate objections to premise two, which says that nature has a design.

• Not all organs in the human body have a function (tonsils). • The human body itself doesn’t have an obvious function. (Reproduction?) • The universe as a whole doesn’t have an obvious function. (Self-perpetuation?)

[6] Summary. • The argument from design is initially persuasive. It holds that there is a pattern of complexity and design in nature. It further claims that this pattern of complexity can only be explained by a higher power. • Yet the argument makes a leap in logic when it claims that the higher power must be the Christian God. The universe is far from perfect, so why assume that the creator of the universe is perfect? • Upon further reflection, the argument uses a weak premise. It assumes that the appearance of design in the natural universe could not be explained through randomness and chance. • The argument, while initially plausible, suffers from some serious defects and is likely neither valid nor sound.