Summary: The Argument Of Design

The argument from design is used to rationalize the existence of God through analogy. The way Hume explains the argument through Cleanthes is: the universe is similar to that of complex machines; intelligent human creators build machines, therefore the universe must have an intelligent divine creator. Cleanthes analogy seems as though it is supposed to be best explanation of rational religion, but comes off as a

Of the three theistic arguments presented by the text, I find the “design”, or the teleological argument to be the most persuasive because unlike the other two arguments (ontological and first cause), the argument’s premises can be supported through observations of the physical world. The ontological and first cause argument are both more based in pure logic and reasoning, and they also can both be easily challenged for the same reason. On the other hand, the design argument focuses less on how the existence of God could be explained in the terms of a “catalyst”, and more how there is a statistically improbable amount of order in our universe (called Maximally Orderly Huge Universe”). Put simply, the design argument states that since there

During the 1800th century, William Paley, an English philosopher of religion and ethics, wrote the essay The Argument from Design. In The Argument from Design, Paley tries to prove the existence of a supreme being through the development of a special kind of argument known as the teleological argument. The teleological argument is argument by analogy, an argument based on the similarities between two different subjects. This essay purposefully attempts to break down Paley’s argument and does so in the following manner: firstly, Paley’s basis for the teleological argument is introduced; secondly, Paley’s argument is derived and analyzed; thirdly, the connection between Paley’s argument and the existence of a supreme being is made; and

In his discussion of the argument from design, which he links with teleological principles, the author refers to the concept of design in a way that alludes to the conviction that there are certain divine manifestations in the world that are so perfect that they must revolve around a grand architect who conceived them to be that way. Therefore, he says that proving such an argument requires "indisputable examples of design or purpose" (McCloskey, 1968, p. 64). However, this standard of indisputability that McCloskey is holding this argument to,

The Design Argument is an argument that says there is a “God” who is the creator of all things. Within this argument, it is stated that things have to be designed – the main example being used is a machine. Cleanthes compares the universe to a machine. They both have many different parts that all work together, but how? The Design Argument says that “God”, or some deity, designed these different elements and pieces in a way so that they can all work together. For a machine to work, all of the pieces must fit together purposefully. When you think about the creator of a machine, for example an engineer, you would most likely think of some intelligent person who created the pieces to make them all fit and work together. Because the world is similar to a machine, by analogy, it too must be created by something intelligent – but on a much grander scale than us.

William Paley has a similar logical gap in his “Argument from Design,” but he attempts to address this issue in “Chapter V.” Previously in this argument, Paley attests that the nature of humans and their parts implies a designer. From the discussion in class, Paley’s argument can be organized as follows:

Based on my interpretation of William Paley’s The Argument from Design, it sounds as though Darwin’s objection to the argument is invalid from the start. Darwin’s objection says that there doesn’t necessarily need to be a designer, creation could happen by chance through evolution or mutation. While the latter part of his argument is completely valid; things can be created through evolution and mutation, the problem with his argument is that there would still have to be a reason that the former being evolved or mutated. Some kind of event would have had to of taken place in order to spark the change in that being. Paley’s argument primarily uses a watch as his example, explaining that it was

I would say that this is inaccurate, since there is proof in history that natural selection exists. Humans might have not always been complex; it is very possible that we simply evolved that way, since those who did not adapt died out. Because of this, we did not necessarily have to have had a creator; we simply evolved into complex individuals over time.

My own impression of intelligent design in nature, is that, a multiplicity of parallel interconnecting complexities exists in any life unit or component.

The designer designs the blueprints however since everything is a design, the designer themselves also must have a blueprint meaning something has to have designed the designer. This is where the argument starts to make its rapid decline. A designer can be anyone or anything, due to this it means it also doesn't have to be God. There are also designs that have many many flaws. Humans can drown, get cancer, need sleep, starve, and

The Argument from design is analogous in nature and can be envisioned through key philosopher William Paley (1743-1809). With his argument of intelligent design acknowledged as the “classical” statement in coupled with his natural theology (1802). Additionally we will explore other forms of the argument from design in a more contemporary version. These consist of Hugh Ross’ Fine-tuning of the universe in reference to his published book The Creator and the Cosmos (1999), and the explanation of how the theory of evolution by natural selection attempts to account for the rise in complex organisms and natural structures without inferring to the concept of an intelligent designer. Lastly, exploring a critical discussion of

The idea of the intelligent design, which is the main subject in all assigned articles, presents our world as a product of the action of a higher, superior Being. This religious and somewhat creative outlook on life differs from the general idea of evolution which states that life is all related and has ascended from a common ancestor. These articles present views that support the notion of the intelligent design and challenge the universally common theory of Darwin’s evolution.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

Paley relates natural objects to watches and all the aspects that goes into making watches. Paley explains the complex design of a watch and makes us believe that there is a designer, but then states that since we have never seen anyone make a watch, and that there are malfunctions in watches and natural objects, we can conclude that there must not be a designer of natural objects. Paley relates natural objects to watches and makes the same statement that no one makes these natural object because we do not see them being made. There is no designer. Human beings do not create natural objects and we do not know where they come from.

Swinburne identifies the argument from design and the argument to design, also known as the anthropic argument. The former form usually involves analogy, and the latter, argues that nature provides for the needs of intelligent beings. This would however, require an extreme intelligence such as God. The heart of this argument is that non-intelligent material things produce beneficial order and therefore require an intelligent being to elicit this. Three features of the world particularly impressed eighteenth century thinkers; firstly the world as a whole, specifically the solar system as described by Newton’s gravitational theory. Secondly, the bodily forms of all animals and plants, in particular organs such as the eye. Finally, the providential arrangement of things on earth amazed eighteenth century philosophers. This leads us back to the design argument for the pocket watch, an aspect that also impressed people at the time; it was a new invention and a clear sign of breakthrough in