Criticism of Intelligent Design---an old term paper of mine (long)

Remove all ads!

Criticism of William Paley's Teleological Argument

William Paley posits the argument that we (as conscious and rational beings) can infer, based upon the intricate and seemingly purposeful workings of the universe, that it has been designed; and being designed, it has a designer. This argument is referred to as the teleological argument for the existence of a god, since it aims to prove existence without direct observation, but rather through a consequential chain of logical inferences.

His argument is based upon the ability of reasoning creatures to discern between intelligent work and that which is considered an unintelligent natural process. He frames the argument narratively: A man is walking along a heath (which is a stretch of uncultivated land), when he happens to strike his foot upon an object; and glancing down, he sees that the object is a watch. The man concludes that the watch is not a naturally occurring object native to heaths, but rather that it is an artifact, designed purposefully by an agent, and then placed in the heath by an agent, although not necessarily the same agent.

Fair enough, but stating that the man "just knows" is not enough, at least not enough for those bent towards critical thinking. So how does the man know that this object has been designed and placed? Well, the choice in object is an easy target: clearly the man would have known that watches are made by his fellow men, and that the only way an object made by men can arrive anywhere is by the work of a man. (Although, I suppose an object with the mass of a watch could be moved by some extreme act of nature, i.e. a tornado or tsunami, but I'll grant this one to Paley, as we are aiming for a flower, not a grain of pollen.)

Paley then goes on to state that it doesn't matter that the man knows watches are artifacts, and that if the man had encountered an artifact that he had never before seen, lets say a computer motherboard (since this man is from the 18th century), he would be equally able to declare the object as designed. And being that we (as modern conscious and rational beings) know the man would be correct, let us instead choose an object which we ourselves are unsure of, namely a 'gingafet', which happened to fall out of the very sky itself, and land right there upon that unsuspecting heath.

Now, how would the man conclude a gingafet was designed? If a gingafet possessed separate and disparate components, all working in unison towards some purpose, then the man would conclude it was designed. And while it is tempting to invoke the notion of a pattern, it must be recognized that patterns are commonly made without an agent; in fact, it is our recognition of these patterns which has allowed us to be "reasonable". And yet, the creation of patterns is a common occupation of intelligent agents... (I think I may have come across a thread here, but lacking the time to fully tug, I must leave it for future consideration.)

Paley's argument distilled is recognizing purpose. If I can recognize the object as purposeful, then it has been designed; separate and disparate parts are not enough to conclude an object has been designed, as otherwise, anything, anywhere could be designated as designed: a clump of sand around a rock, the rock, or the very molecules composing the rock. It is the observation of purposefulness which signifies an intelligence at work, nothing less will do.

Our textbook introduces Paley's argument with the phrase, "every analogy limps", and while the author of the textbook does not explain why he makes this statement, I believe my criticism of Paley's teleological argument reinforces the axiomatic nature of that statement. Paley draws an analogy between a watch and the universe, but only demonstrates that both are composed of separate and disparate parts; and while it is true that both a watch and everything else including the watch (i.e. the universe) display a synchronized interdependence of separate and disparate parts that is beautiful to behold, the watch is significantly different in the respect that it has a purpose within the universe; while it cannot be known that the universe is a system delineated from a larger reality, and as such, it cannot be known to have a purpose. A purposeful act requires an alteration of that which exists, and since the universe cannot have an observable "outside" from which an intelligence could effect alterations, any argument stating that the universe, as a whole, displays design is logically flawed. It must be noted that "the universe" is being used interchangeably with "reality", and if nature was found to be structured multi-dimensionally, or if some space existed prior to the Big Bang, then that new space, or spaces, would become the boundary by which delineation of a smaller system, that which, within that larger system, was designed to effect a purpose, could be made possible; and this final boundary cannot logically be shown to be the boundary of any purposeful system, because if it did, it would not be the final boundary.

If we instead assume that Paley is referring to naturally occurring systems of a smaller scale, such as, for example, a tree, then we are talking about a different sort of designer altogether; in the first scenario, the designer was a preexistent being unable to be known through logic, but in the second scenario, the designer is an active participant in the universe, i.e. a maker of miracles.

The criteria of design is still the same: purpose. And as my second criticism of Paley's argument, I challenge the notion that "purpose" is an objective quality of objects, equally detectable to all observers. This is just not the case. Any object can have an infinite number of purposes depending on whom is observing the object. This is important, as it demonstrates that recognizing the purpose of anything for a separate and different observer is ultimately impossible.

So, what is the purpose of a tree? I say that it is to make more trees, but the woodpecker may say to provide a home, and the monkey may say as an outstanding platform from which to chuck poo. This demonstrates not that the tree was designed, but rather that it is being observed by an intelligence capable of recognizing usefulness. The tree is not inherently useful for any purpose whatsoever, it is instead just a complex object (and the notion of "object" includes all of its ancestors as well, it is just an object---or pattern---which changes over time). And so when Paley posits that nature has been designed, and that this proves the existence of a Divine Creator, all he has proven is that he can communicate what he believes God would see as useful about objects.

Paley is entitled to respond, but due to his unfortunate death, I shall instead act as his advocate:

Mr. Correll,

Your criticisms are both scathing as well as foolhardy. What sort of arrogance do you display?! You declare that it is impossible to know the purpose of the universe as a singular object, and though perhaps I may be inclined to agree with your assessment, I think it is fair to say that you have aimed for your flower, but instead struck the Earth before it and claimed yourself a marksman! Fool! I did not try to prove the purpose of the universe, but rather that it has a purpose; knowing that purpose is the domain of Him, and recognizing the purposefulness of all things is the domain of the humble. Truly, you are blinded.

As for your second criticism, that it is possible to devise an infinite number of purposes for any possible object, I reply thus: Despite your inherent baseness, betrayed by the illustrations of your examples (Monkeys throwing their unspeakables?!), I think you have managed to illuminate, though surely by chance rather than through merit, the fact that all of Nature, both tree, root, and star in the sky, must have a purpose, since all objects have an infinite number of purposes.

As I part my beard, so that I may puff upon my handsomely curved tobacco pipe, I am struck by the notion that the only way in which Nature would be purposeless, and as such, undesigned, is if there were no observers of it; our very existence renders Nature purposeful, and a purposeful Nature renders proof of God. Truly sir, you have made me closer to God this day! Bless your confused heart!

Regards,

William Paley

Now that I have read his reply, I am forced to reconsider my earlier position. The man is certainly a wordsmith. Does an object, once observed, suddenly become imbued with an infinite number of purposes? Does the object require being observed, or has it had all those possibilities inherent within in, for all of time? I don't know. Given that everything may be purposeful, does that necessitate the existence of God? I do not believe that it necessitates the existence of an active, miracle-wielding, agent on the Arabian peninsula sort of God; however, everything being purposeful does require a designer of sorts, as otherwise, for whom does the purpose serve? Again, the question arises of whether or not purpose is imbued by the observer.

I am of the belief that Paley has not proven the existence of God, but rather, just that if purpose is inherent to all objects, then a god of sorts exists. And all things do have a purpose, at least for me, being an observer, which means I have a god, though it is an understanding for the subject---namely me---only.

[ July 30, 2006, 05:52: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

I am not convinced that everything has a purpose as such. A tree, in trying to create more trees, will create many trees in areas to dense, shaded, bright, or otherwise hostile to support it's existence in order to produce one that will actually survive. In humans, more children are naturally aborted by the body in the first trimester than are carried to term.

Galaxies crash together, destroying any life which may have existed within. As our existence continues, both negative and positive traits are continually passed on....especially in humans, since those of us who would be unable to survive in nature survive in this modern world and pass on their less than optimal genetic information.

What "purpose" is served by tornadoes? Hurricanes? Earthquakes? While they all have causes and are natural occurences, they do not themselves fulfill any purpose of which we are aware. When a volcano erupts or a river overflows, the land is renewed. Is the renewal of the land the "purpose" of such catastrophes or is it just a side effect. Just because something can be bent to a purpose doesn't make it purposeful, nor does serving a purpose imply design.

I've seen my cat convert packaging into a bed, a necklace into a playtoy, my couch into a scratching post. These items were all designed, sure, but they were not created for the purpose for which my cat uses them. My cat has bent these items to her use. Similarly, a tree can be used for many things. That it can be used for so many things in no way implies that it has been designed for them, or even that it was designed at all.

 

I agree with Drew. There is no purpose. Things just "are".

 

If there wasn't a purpose in something, humans would make one up. Many people would go mad at the thought of a world without purpose.

 

I don't really agree with that statement, either, though. In my mind, there may be a purpose to our existance. There may not. What I think about it is irrelevant, because I'll either never know, or I'll find out when I'm dead. So I don't waste my time with it.

I am, admittedly, a militant agnostic.

 

I think Tassadar hit upon a interesting point. If in viewing an object and giving it a purpose, and thus a designer, am I not god?

 

How can you even say that? You´re not God. I am.

 

That's odd, I thought I was god?

On a more serious note (although few things are as serious as my divinity), Tassadar touched upon something that I agree with. Although this is perhaps slightly off-topic, it is my belief that many people become religious simply because they desire to have some purpose in their lives. Many people cannot cope with the incomprehensibility of ceasing to exist after death and, therefore, the pointlessness of life before so they turn to whatever offers an alternative- religion.

Disclaimers:
1) Despite using Tassadar's statement to start off, he may well disagree with me on what I just said.
2) I'm not saying that all, religious people are like that or that non-religious people don't fear death, just that I think that is how many are drawn to religion.

 

Intelligent design is inane enough that one person can easily play both sides of a debate (if not as well as LNT) as long as he can keep a straight face while saying that there were adolescent dinosaurs on Noah's Ark....seriously, I read that once on a pro ID website.

If you're interested in the debate as it relates to school curriculums across the country you should read judge Jones' "Dover decision" from last year. He sums up the whole decision agaist ID toward the end saying: "The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial."

Decados, I have long held the belief that many people who cling to a religion do so out of the fear of death. Absolutely not existing anymore is a heinous prospect, and for some the fear of their own cessation pales tremendously with the thought of a loved one meeting the same fate. I wish I could believe in God.

That being said, I would bet that there are people out there who thrive under the spectre of cessation...who find meaning in life because they know that they only have one shot. So, they make the most of every opportunity, relationship, experience etc. Religion is not the only game in town when it comes to finding the "point" of it all.

 

@ Decados
Yes that's what I was hinting at. I went out with many a girl who couldn't bear to accept that there was a possibilty that when you die, that's it. No heaven, no God, no welcome home signs. It was like I took their little protective bubble away and said Santa Claus may not be real.

 

The purpose of living things is to live, however they manage to do this is due to how they have evolved to deal with needing to compete with other living things and the challenges that non-living things provide.

Something that has not been designed does not have a purpose, it is has a 'cause'. It is there due to past events and you can go back as far as time itself to explain how it got there.

Things are, because they always have been there and things are ever-changing. Stuff was there yesterday, it's here today and it'll be there tomorrow in one form or another.

Arguments can be made that nobody can prove that this is the case, yet one only needs to stare out into space consider how much 'else' there is and realise that it simply goes on forever.