The teleological argument, supported by William Paley, attempts to prove the existence of God through the argument that the universe must be the result of intelligent design as it resembles a machine, which is certainly the product of design. In essence, Paley asserts that since many parts of the universe are purposive, the universe must itself be the product of the intelligent design of God. The problem with this premise is that its reasoning can be refuted by other explanations, such as that of the theory of evolution.
The basis of the teleological argument is an analogy of a machine and the universe. Essentially, in the sense that a machine is made up of many parts that work together for a certain purpose, nature is also made up of many parts that work together for a common purpose: sustaining life (Rowe, 2015, p.57). Paley uses the example of a watch to demonstrate this concept because the parts of a watch are arranged in such a way that under certain conditions they work to achieve a specific function: to tell the time of day. In our world, plants and animals are arranged to ensure their survival and reproduction of the organism. From what we are able to observe, there is no randomness or chaos in the way that nature and its beings are arranged.
The argument builds upon this observation that there is a particular order in nature to suggest that due to nature’s arrangement the world must be a product of intelligent design. For instance, philosopher Henry More states, “But the reason is nothing is done foolishly or in vain; that is, there is a divine Providence that orders all things”(Rowe, 2015, p.58). The way in which the many parts of nature are arranged just so implies that these parts are ‘really purposive’, as the definition states that something that is ‘really purposive’ is both the purposive and the product of design. Hence, there must be a designer as it is for certain the product of design. Thus, the argument is as follows: machines are the product of intelligent design and many parts of the universe resemble a machine. So, the universe or many of its parts are likely to be produced by intelligent design. This intelligent designer is most likely God as it could not be man and God is the best candidate designer. Therefore, God must exist (Rowe, 2015, p.59).
The objection I raise is to the premise that if the universe is the product of design, then God must exist and be this intelligent designer. Further, it is difficult to assume that if God was the designer, it would automatically be the theologian's concept of God. While this explanation is plausible, it could just as easily be explained by another theory, such as Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. This theory implies that the process of natural selection accounts for the structure of the parts of nature due to the fact that it molds adaptations to solve problems over time, such as the human eye for sight. Moreover, “over great periods of time there slowly emerge large populations of highly developed organisms whose parts are so peculiarly fitted to their survival” (Rowe, 2015, p.60). Essentially, Darwin suggests that the intelligent designer is natural selection which would account for the particular way components of the universe are structured to achieve the purpose of survival and procreation. A well-known example of this is that of galapagos finches and their different types of beaks pertaining to their location on the island. Their beaks differ based upon what the abundant food source is in their habitat on the island whether that be fruit or nuts and this variation has allowed for their survival and reproduction. These small adaptations lead to increasingly complex parts of the universe over time and can be a more conceivable explanation for the parts of the universe being purposive (Uppsala University, 2015). This would imply that the universe is simply the product of design by evolution, not a divine being. As seen with the galapagos finches, there is much more direct evidence of the process of natural selection as opposed to the idea that God designed the world in this way. Therefore, the reader should reject the premise that God is the best candidate designer for the universe and hence, the conclusion that God exists as there is another more probable answer.
The author of the teleological argument, William Paley, would respond to this objection by stating that natural selection can account for some of the complexity of the parts of the universe, but it cannot account for all of it in the way that God’s existence could. For instance, “Since Darwinian evolution proceeds by successive slight modifications of functioning systems, modifications that happen to be adaptive to changes in the environment, the claims is that it is enormously difficult, if not impossible, to see how irreducibly complex systems at the complex systems at the molecular level could come about” (Rowe, 2015, p.60-61). Basically, natural selection would not be able to account for the origins of the parts of the universe because it could not explain the complexity at the molecular level of which all parts of the universe began. This means that the theory of evolution could not essentially account for all of the purposiveness or design of the universe. Natural selection accounts for the complexity one can see in the environment today on a larger scale, as opposed to the smaller, minute complexities of the universe. Furthermore, Paley would propose the God Hypothesis as a more logical reason for the complexity of all of the parts of the universe due to the theologian’s definition of God. As this definition states, God is perfectly good and would want to create a world like ours that allows for life and for that reason, he would attempt to do so. In addition, as God is omnipotent under this concept, all of his attempts would be a success and, thus, he would create a world like ours. This hypothesis has a high probability because we don’t know if it’s false and it involves real purposiveness, which means that something is purposive and is the product of design that needs a designer. Overall, Paley would defend his claim that God is the intelligent designer of the universe and exists on the basis that only God can account for the complexity of the miniscule designs of the universe and would be the supreme being to create a world like ours by definition of ‘God exists’.
I would respond to Paley by agreeing with the claim that Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot explain all of the intricacies of the universe, only the larger components present today. However, it is still a big leap to assume that even the infinitesimal parts of the universe were the product of God’s design because the creator itself would be complex and therefore need an even greater designer. Furthermore, it is impossible to know the purpose of the most miniscule parts of the universe for certain as we cannot observe them. As a result, it is difficult to prove that without definite knowledge of the every element of the universe that every part of the universe was the result of God’s design. Consequently, from this premise one cannot prove the existence of God.
In sum, Paley’s premise that if the universe is the product of design, then God exists should be rejected on the basis that it cannot sufficiently prove all of the components of the universe were the result of God’s design. The theory of evolution can serve as a naturalistic hypothesis for the complexity and purposiveness of the many parts of the universe, but it also cannot account for all of it. Accordingly, the teleological argument fails to successfully prove the existence of God as the creator of the universe.