Essay Exam #2

[a]

     The teleological argument, more commonly known as the argument from design, is based on the assumption, when considering the many intricacies of our natural world, that such complexity and order would not have arisen by random chance. Some entity (or entities) with superhuman intelligence must have been behind the design. Living organisms, geological forces, and even the workings of solar systems and galaxies‒ all share components that resemble the parts of machines; since man has clearly invented machines, then by extrapolation it follows that the machinery of the universe was also designed by an intelligent maker.

     There are different schools of the design argument. In a way, one could say that theists have held a general consensus of a creationist, design-based world for millenia. (Only when science, and more specifically evolution, became popular did the need for a distinction even become necessary). William Paley (1743-1805) was an early proponent and pioneer of the movement, with his Natural Theology; or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. (This is the work from which came the “watch-maker” analogy cited by Stairs & Bernard). Although not given a proper name in our texts, we could call this the traditional design argument, from which the later versions came.

     Scientific creationism takes the most hard-line stance on design, and seeks through science to prove a mostly literal reading of Genesis while refuting evolution. Their arguments, such as citing a lack of fossil records for evolution, are seriously flawed and the movement is generally dismissed as a pseudo-science. The US government ruled in the 1980s that scientific creationism could not be taught in public schools because it violated the principle of separation of church and state. Such setbacks and criticisms led to the establishment of a more liberal approach.

     Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) is that more refined rebuttal of evolution; while still arguing for the case of a designer the proponents have deliberately taken “God” out of the dialogue. One can still sense a deity as the underlying, “unofficial” explanation they have in mind, but they also posit extraterrestrial or time-traveling agents as possible candidates. Although decidedly an improvement on Scientific Creationism, IDT is not considered a proper science either because of the allowance for supernatural explanations of phenomena. It is a philosophy, being a subcategory of Rational Theology.

     A third version of the Design Argument is the “Fine-Tuning Design” concept. (It will be discussed in a later section of this essay in detail).

[b]

     Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was the seminal work that garnered worldwide scientists' and intellectuals' acceptance of evolution as the best explanation of diversity and complexity here on the planet. The two major forces of evolution are random genetic mutation and natural selection. Put simply, evolution removes the necessity of an intelligent designer in how nature works. Because all organisms on earth are in competition (for food, shelter, mates to reproduce with, etc.), the forces of nature favor those individuals with the best survival traits. At random times there are mutations in offspring, and when these changes benefit survival they are far more likely to be repeated through subsequent generations. A basic example: giraffes did not always have such long necks. But as some were born (through mutation) with the extra length, it became easier for them to browse food higher in the trees than other animals. This advantage, in turn, assured that more with the long necks survived, to the point that shorter-necked giraffes became extinct. In a nutshell‒ evolution renders the intelligent design argument a “species” of philosophy that might itself become extinct for lack of evidence...

[c]

     The Fine-Tuning Design argument (FTD) takes an intriguingly different approach to intelligent design than the Creationists, who cite mostly the inconsistencies they see in nature in regard to evolution. Rather than focusing on the biological aspects, FTD looks at the precision of the underlying physical properties of the universe; the strength of gravity and the sub-atomic nuclear force, the diversity of stars, the prevalence of hydrogen, etc. All of these appear to be within a very narrow range, outside of which biological life would be impossible. Deeming this a state of rare circumstances that defies mere coincidence, it is one of the seemingly stronger arguments for intelligent design. Water, for example, is an absolutely essential need for all life on Earth, and would not be possible in liquid form if not for this unlikely precision of certain properties.

     Objections to FTD are, predictably, from atheist or agnostic physicists (and other scientists and philosophers) who counter that it is unreasonable to assume that life as we know it is the only life possible‒ “carbon chauvinism” is their wonderful phrase. Evolutionists could also argue that life has evolved to adapt best to the “cards we've been dealt”, and that the fine-tuning equation should be reversed: the universe wasn't finely tuned for life. Life finely tuned itself to the universe.

[d]

     David Hume's writings about the various problems of religion were very influential in furthering a skeptical approach to theology. (His Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding famously questions the validity of miracles). He attacked the idea of intelligent design on at least three fronts. First, the “bad analogy” objection, (which, although written before Paley's “watchmaker”, seems to anticipate it).

     Hume contended that man-made machines and precision instruments are so radically different from biological and natural objects that comparisons are meaningless. Hence, a bad analogy. Stronger (in my opinion) is Hume's rebuttal that, “if there's an intelligent designer- then who designed the designer?” It's hypocritical to assert that the universe requires a designer, but that this same creator does not. Carried to the extreme, the “designer designing a designer “ would have to regress infinitely, an obviously absurd situation.

     Stairs and Bernard point out, more than once, that proponents of intelligent design could avoid some of Hume's and other critics' objections by making the case for design an abductive argument; going more for a “best explanation” scenario than an absolute proof. That would seem, for me, to be the best they could ever hope for, short of the “designer” showing up in person to claim responsibility.

     Hume's final critique was that, even giving design the benefit of doubt, that there is still no special requirement that God be the designer. (This seems to foreshadow the shift from Scientific Creationism to the more agnostic Intelligent Design argument). Also pertinent was his noting that there are many “design flaws” in nature; animals that have to overcome ridiculous challenges in their environment (think of the penguin's arduous task of migrating and mating every year), or all the disease, pain, and suffering that occurs worldwide. To Hume and others, this hardly implies an entity that is all-knowing, maximally powerful, and/or omnibenevolent.

     Creationism and Intelligent Design proponents, despite shortcomings of many of their arguments,remain a force in society and politics to be reckoned with. This strong desire to believe in a God is also behind current religious views regarding abortion, LGBT issues and same-sex marriage, end-of-life medical options, and numerous others. The debate is likely to continue for a long time to come.