What’s the difference between a line of dominoes and a pile of sticks? Distinguishing between order and chaos seems to come naturally to us humans. The intricacy of computers, the symmetry in nature, and the arrangement of your home’s décor all stand in direct contrast to the destruction caused by dynamite or the desolation of a volcanic explosion. It is no wonder then that when we recognize order and design in the cosmos we then construe a designer. Many people take the appearance of design in the universe as evidence for the existence of God, but is this a valid conclusion? Today’s article discusses the teleological argument, the argument for God’s existence based on the appearance of design and fine-tuning in the universe.

THE ARGUMENT

The teleological argument has existed for millennia, even being employed by such minds as Plato, Cicero, and Thomas Aquinas (De Cruz). Perhaps the most familiar example to us today is the watchmaker illustration used by William Paley. If you were to stumble across a watch in the forest one day, you would not presume that the watch had come into existence by chance; rather you would infer that there had to have been a watchmaker. This is the essence of the teleological argument: the orderliness and apparent design of the universe demands a master designer.

WHAT COUNTS AS DESIGN?

But this raises the question: what exactly constitutes order or design? “When we see a house, we can reasonably infer that it has an architect or builder because we know from experience that this particular effect flows from that particular cause. But we have no guarantee that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house as to invoke a Designer; we do not know how far our analogy is reliable” (De Cruz). Such is the objection raised. “Apparently, design is in the eye of the beholder; our judgment that something is an artifact depends on our foreknowledge that the artifact was intentionally created” (De Cruz). These authors have a point. The only reason we can tell that something was intentionally designed is that we already know things like that are designed! If you had never seen a watch before, what would you think of the watch in the forest? Would you automatically assume someone made it? It’s the same problem with the universe; since we don’t have another universe to compare it to, then it seems that we can’t reasonably say that it is designed. Just as much, though, we also cannot say that it is totally random.

KANT VS. LEWIS

Indeed, it would seem that the appearance of design in the universe depends on who you ask! While Immanuel Kant agreed that the universe does display at least some semblance of order, he believed the workings and mechanisms of the universe are not the result of a designer, but are mere blind causalities of nature (Geiger). C.S. Lewis, on the other hand, argued that the amount of trust we place in our own reasoning abilities defeated the case for nature’s blindness in his famous argument against naturalism. Basically Lewis said that if nature is all that there is, our reasoning abilities are direct products of the random mechanisms of the universe. If this is true, then how much confidence can we place in our cognitive faculties? Evolution’s goal for organisms is survival and adaptation, not the discovery of truth, and our senses and minds would reflect that. Lewis very handily used this argument to show that naturalism is at best self-refuting (Craighead). For clarity, here is a formulation of Lewis’s argument:

Premise 1 : Any belief that is held solely on the basis of non-rational causes is a belief that is not rationally justifiably held.

Premise 2 : If Naturalism is true, then all of our beliefs are held solely on the basis of non-rational causes.

Premise 3 (from 1 and 2): If Naturalism is true, none of our beliefs are rationally justifiably held.

Premise 4 : We take for granted that at least some of our beliefs, for example, our belief in the existence of an external world of material objects, are rationally justifiably held.

Premise 5 (from 3 and 4): Either we must take for granted that Naturalism is false or we must stop taking for granted that any of our beliefs, including the belief in an external world of material objects, is rationally justifiably held.

Premise 6 : We will not (cannot? should not?) stop taking for granted that some of our beliefs are rationally justifiably held.

Conclusion (from 5 and 6): We must take for granted that Naturalism is false. (Craighead)

But this is again met with an objection from the naturalist: wouldn’t it be more fitting for survival to form true beliefs? For example, if people once thought that a poisonous berry was fine to eat, natural selection would weed out those who ate it, while preserving the ones who did not eat it. Thus people would form the belief that this berry is poisonous, which would be true. Dr. Jay Richards wrestles fantastically with this problem:

“So wouldn’t the Darwinian process select for reliable rational faculties, and so, give us faculties that would produce true beliefs?

Lewis argues that this process — which preserves survival-enhancing features — is nevertheless non-rational, and so cannot be expected to produce rational faculties. Again, if naturalism were true, then one would not expect minds and agents, choices and intentions to exist at all. If these things did exist, surely they would be mere epiphenomena of physical states. But let’s grant their existence, and even allow the naturalist the luxury of assuming that beliefs can guide our behavior. The naturalist will then want to argue that our reason and belief-forming faculties have been shaped by natural selection over eons, and so should be quite reliable.

The problem is that there are millions of beliefs, few of which are true in the sense that they correspond with reality, but all compatible with the same behavior. Natural selection could conceivably select for survival-enhancing behavior. But it has no tool for selecting only the behaviors caused by true beliefs, and weeding out all the others. So if our reasoning faculties came about as most naturalists assume they have, then we have little reason to assume they are reliable in the sense of giving us true beliefs. And that applies to our belief that naturalism is true.”

What does all of this mean? It means that if we are to continue assuming that our reasoning abilities are trustworthy, then we must take naturalism to be false, nature is at least not blind, and the universe must have an element of design to it.

AN ABDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

We would now do well to note that the teleological argument is not a deductive argument; that is, the conclusion of this argument–that God exists–cannot be reached through a series of irrefutable premises. Rather, this argument is an abductive argument, and as such cannot be evaluated as sound or valid (in the academic philosophical sense), but as convincing or compelling. We therefore take what appears to be design in the universe and then reason to the best possible explanation, kind of like Sherlock Holmes.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

One thing that strongly suggests that the universe was designed is the concept of irreducible complexity. Michael Behe, biochemistry professor at Lehigh University, explains this idea in his book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution: “By irreducibly complex I mean a simple system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning (Nash 301).

Behe gives an example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap needs a wooden base, a holding bar, a spring, a hammer bar, and a catch in order to work properly. It takes only one of these parts to be missing to disable the mousetrap. It’s all or nothing. Behe takes this analogy and explains that a human cell is the same way. A cell is made up of cilium, blood coagulation, a transport system, antibodies, and the immune system. The cell could not function if one of these is missing. Random, gradual mutations could not have produced a functioning cell, because all the parts of the cell have to be assembled together at the same time in order for the cell to work (Nash 302). Design, or incredible coincidence?

FINE-TUNING

The universe is marvelously constructed in its laws of physics, specifically creating just the right conditions to sustain life here on earth. Philosophers and scientists call this fine-tuning. As most people know, the universe contains certain constants, such as gravitational force, nuclear force, and electromagnetic force. In order for a universe to permit life, scientists have found that the values for these constants must fall within an extremely narrow range. If just one of these values is altered by the tiniest bit, the ability for the universe to sustain life is nullified. A very good illustration I’ve heard is this: imagine a room with a machine that produces universes. On this machine are thirty or so dials that, when adjusted properly, cause the machine to produce a universe that is life-permitting. For our universe, it’s as if someone entered the room and meticulously adjusted all of the dials to their correct values in order to produce a universe that is life-permitting, or fine-tuned. The chances of our universe spontaneously coming into existence and having the capability to sustain life by chance is small beyond comprehension. William Lane Craig discusses the universe’s fine-tuning at length in his book, On Guard.

PHYSICALLY NECESSARY EXISTENCE

An objection to the design argument has surfaced in the form of a third option: what if this life-permitting universe simply exists necessarily? In other words, what if it is impossible to have a universe that prohibits life, meaning that the constants discussed above simply have to be the values that they are? Dr. Craig dismisses this option for the mere fact that there is no proof of this. The universal constants mentioned are not reliant on the laws of nature and are therefore independent and subject to change (Craig 112). A physically necessary universe also defies intuition. We can easily imagine a planet, or a flower, or really anything physical, to not exist. So a life-permitting universe being physically necessary is wishful thinking at best.

CONCLUSION

We have seen that naturalism is at best self-refuting and therefore we must have a better explanation for the appearance of design in the universe. The notions of irreducible complexity and the undeniable fact that the universe is fine-tuned to support life of any kind both point to a design that must be more than just random chance. Indeed, the probability that this universe has sprung into existence spontaneously is so slight that it defies all rational thought. Abductively, the universe has either been caused by chance, exists necessarily, or is the result of a thoughtful creator. All of the evidence points to intelligent design.

Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2010. Print.

Craighead, Houston A. “C S Lewis’ Teleological Argument.” Encounter 57.2 (1996): 171-185. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. Web. 31 Oct. 2015.

De Cruz, Helen, and Johan De Smedt. “PALEY’s Ipod: THE COGNITIVE BASIS OF THE DESIGN ARGUMENT WITHIN NATURAL THEOLOGY.” Zygon: Journal Of Religion & Science 45.3 (2010): 665. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 31 Oct. 2015.

Geiger, Ido. “Is Teleological Judgement (Still) Necessary? Kant’s Arguments In The Analytic And In The Dialectic Of Teleological Judgement.” British Journal For The History Of Philosophy 17.3 (2009): 533-566. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Oct. 2015.

Nash, Ronald H. Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999. Print.