The key idea’s about strengths of the design argument

The design argument is an argument that tries to demonstrate the existence of God as the explanation of the creation of this planet and all it’s purpose’s.

The Teleological argument argues that the universe is being directed towards a telos, an end purpose, and the a posteriori evidence of an apparent design in the world implies the existence of a designer, God. The argument can be split into two main categories, design qua purpose and design qua regularity. I’m going to examine the key ideas in this essay.

William Paley wrote a book called ‘Natural Theology’ and he mentioned his own form of the Teleological argument which have two parts: Design qua Purpose – the universe was designed to fulfil a purpose, and Design qua Regularity – the universe behaves according to some order. Paley uses an analogy of a watch to explain the Design qua purpose. The watch is like the universe as it is far too complex to have just happened by chance, so it is impossible to suggest that the universe had come about without the creator of a ‘universe maker’, which is God.

Paley also uses an analogy of the eye, it is obvious that the eye was designed with the purpose of seeing so therefore there is a Designing Creator which again is God. His argument is a posteriori and inductive so everyone can relate and understand his theories, therefore it’s easier for people to follow the argument and agree with his theories.

In argument of the Design qua Regularity, there is also evidence for a creator in the regularity of the universe, as there is a relationship between the planets and the effect of gravity could not have come about without a designing principle at work which leads on to Arthur Brown’s theory.

St Thomas Aquinas was another philosopher who just like Paley, used an analogy. He used a form of the teleological argument in his fifth way, in which he was arguing from the Design qua Regularity. He based his theory on his bow and arrow analogy, ” Now what ever locks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the anchor”.

Just like Paley and Aquinas, Arthur Brown agrees with the design argument. He based his analogy on the ozone layer and about how the the universe has a design, the rotation of the planets in the solar system and how they obey the universal law and hold their orbits due to gravity. He believes that this must have been designed and not created by chance, so this is argued from Design qua purpose.

F. R Tennant developed the anthropic principle and the aesthetic argument as he believed that there were three types of natural evidence in the world, in favour of a designer, which was that the world can be analysed analytically; the way in which the in-organic world provides necessities for organic life and the progress of evolution to emerge human life. He thinks it is entirely possible that you can imagine a chaotic universe, in which there are no rules, however, it is proven not to be chaotic and it was designed in such a way as to evolutionarily produce intelligent life. Therefore, Tennant was to believe that human life was either part of God’s plan, or at least the current stage of his plan.

Another philosopher who agrees with Tennant is Richard Swinburne. He believes that if there is a design, then God is the simplest explanation. The strong anthropic principle claims that the necessities of human evolution were too natural to the big bang and the creation of the universe; the whole purpose of design being that human life would evolve on earth.