‘There is no design in the universe’. Discuss.

Teleological arguments for the existence of God aim to demonstrate probability qua purpose or qua regularity. Paley, Aquinas, Swinburne, Tennant and Behe have produced arguments based on the appearance of design in the universe indicating a designer, which they believe is God. If we just ‘see ‘the universe as looking designed but it is not actually, then all teleological arguments for the existence of God fail. I do not believe the universe was designed by an external, intelligent being, I believe it came about by chance, naturally, which I think the scholars mentioned above do not consider enough, they are too distracted by what they ’see’ and then posit this as ‘design’. Just because something is complex and ordered is not sufficient evidence of ‘design’, why couldn’t something complex come about by chance? However, arguably some ideas of design do question this view, for example Behe’s example of the mousetrap. Hume, Mill and Darwin gave different arguments of how the universe was made, which support a thesis of apparent design created by chance.

This is a philosophy essay and so beliefs and opinions are not really relevant – this student needs to learn a different way of phrasing the argument, using analysis rather than statements of belief. If you read on you will notice that the student mentions a number of philosophers /scholars who do not appear again (Tennant, Swinburne) and one that only makes a glancing appearance in the conclusion (Behe). This is a tactical mistake. You won’t impress examiners just by name-dropping.

Claims made for design in the universe are a posteriori, from observation. These include Paley’s qua purpose argument, qua purpose is in the sense that the universe was designed to fulfil a purpose and qua regularity, in the sense that the universe behaves according to some order. In Natural Theology Paley compared the complexity of the universe with a watch, he stated that it was easy to know if something was naturally made “ I could easily account for its existence” . You also know if something is man made, because of its complexity and intricate nature; he uses the watch as an example “I could not account for it in that natural way… reveals an array of intricate, beautifully made cogs…”. He therefore concludes that there has to be a “watch maker”, because it could not come around by chance, so the universe must also have a designer because of its complexity, which must be God. Paley believes so strongly about this, because using our inference we can tell the difference between man-made and natural things.

A stronger paragraph is beginning to develop an analysis of Paley with good use of quotations.

However, the effectiveness of the argument that there is design is limited by Mill’s challenge of the nature of evil and his observation that there exists some things which have no evident purpose. He believes that because natural evil, for example the plague or volcanoes, exist, then if the universe was designed it seems to be a faulty one. Therefore, if there is a designer the designer is morally flawed. Mill’s challenge is effective overall in challenging the existence of God, because it makes no sense that if God existed he would create a universe with natural evil, as he is supposed to be omni-benevolent and omnipotent so able to eliminate natural evil. If God did exist then perhaps he designed the universe with natural evil, because if he designed the world perfectly then life would be too easy and straight forward, we would never have to go through any tough times and we need those to develop as a person. Suffering itself might arguably have a purpose.

Interesting paragraph which slips in quite a subtle point that suffering itself might be part of the divine purpose. Clear exposition of Mill’s view.

However, Paley’s teleological argument has weaknesses, for example, his analogy is flawed. You cannot compare watches to a universe, as Hume observed, they are nothing alike, analogies should be made between two distinct things, not between something man made and natural. However, his analogy has some strengths, for example, it makes comprehensible sense to us, its simple and straightforward. Moreover, what is there to say there wasn’t a group of watchmakers instead of one, it makes no sense to say there is one intelligent being known as God, when it could have been a group of Gods who designed the universe.

The student makes good use of David Hume’s arguments against the teleological argument.

Thomas Aquinas offers a different teleological argument. His 5th Way of the Summa is influenced by Aristotle’s four causes and has a teleological view that everything in the universe has a purpose. Here he is presenting an a posteriori qua purpose argument for the existence of God. He uses an arrow and an archer to state that everything aims to their telos which has intelligence, or an “intelligent being” has to direct that thing. Therefore, even inanimate things seem to act towards a particular end, which to Aquinas is directed by an intelligent being, which is God.

However, Hume’s argument again goes against this teleological theory, as he states that the appearance of design might be the result of random events. This is seen in Hume’s Epicurean Thesis. This is the idea that there is not a designer, instead the universe was made naturally. If there was infinite time and finite particles they would undergo every possible combination. Some of those combinations would be stable and would over time form the universe. Hume’s argument is effective because he shows that the universe could have come around by chance and create complex, beautiful structures without having to be designed. They might come about rarely and remain, whereas ugly and dysfunctional structures may have died away, due to them not being complex enough to function. ‘Apparent’ order is not the same as ‘intended’ order. In Hume’s dialogues he mentioned this, using ‘Philo’ as a critic. I would tend side with Hume and against Aquinas, because even if you did prove the world was designed that would not mean that we could infer that it was made by the Christian God.

The student links Aquinas with Hume’s criticisms which again are clearly stated and give a sense of analysis with evaluation which scores highly on the AO2 criteria.

Furthermore, a significant challenge to the appearance of design in the universe comes from Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Darwin’s theory suggests that species develop by a process of random mutation and that the fittest survive if they adapt to their environments ‘the survival of the fittest’, for example the finches on the Galapagos Islands whose beaks changed over time. The rest die out and only a select few species survive, because ‘Life is a struggle to exist’. This is supporting Hume’s idea that ‘apparent’ order can come from chaos. If countless number of species have not survived, because they could not adapt, then if this represents design it seems a wasteful process. If all species have evolved from simpler species, that indicates that we were not designed as we are. This is a challenge to the qua purpose teleological argument and points to the idea that there is no designer or if there is one then it is a very faulty one, and not a omnipotent God may Christians say he is.

Effective development of the idea that apparent design might come out of chaos and random events.

In conclusion, to say that there is design implies there is an intelligent designer, inferring that God exists, an argument supported by Paley and Aquinas. However, Hume, Mill and Darwin say they can account for the appearance of design, and instead criticise that it is only ‘apparent’. I believe you cannot rule out design completely, because for example, Behe said there are things in nature that are ‘irreducibly complex’ parts have no function for natural selection to work unless they are together. These incredibly complex things in the universe, for example the process of blood coagulation, makes you question whether there is any design in that. I have argued that on balance the challenges to intelligent design are more persuasive than the teleological arguments. The evolutionary theory especially is a very strong argument for the universe coming about naturally, and is solid evidence against the universe being designed. For example, the finch’s beaks that changed over time to adapt to their environments, indicates no design because their original beaks had to change and were not sufficient enough for their purpose in the universe.

Behe’s argument should have been introduced earlier; it is an argument disputed by many philosophers. The conclusion has a good nuanced feel to it which fits in with the argument of the essay which on balance sides with the critics of the teleological argument. I admit that I edited this essay quite a bit: this student tends to repeat himself and write too much. He also has a tendency to write “I believe’ and ‘in my opinion’, which I largely edited out. If you find yourself writing this, take a red pen and cross these phrases out. You never find philosophers using them. My edits have edged the essay towards an A grade, but the student’s original answer would only have achieved grade B.

AO1 12 marks

AO2 20 marks

32/40 80% Grade A (just)