Argument From Design Arguments

and to do it to the best of their abilities. This also leads on to the

Intelligent Design is the idea that living creatures on Earth are so complex that, they could not possibly have been created through the natural selection. It is the belief that there must be an ?intelligent designer? that created us all. This creator is usually referenced as God. However, it may also be

William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a

b, The idea that God exists and that he is the architect to serve the

The outline of the design argument is that the universe has order and purpose and is regular, the complexities of the universe demonstrate some form of design, a design requires a

Question 1) C.S Lewis like many of us was skeptical about several arguments made by intelligent design alone. After many years of research, he came up with arguments that demonstrate the world was not created by a divine intelligent design alone.

In Paley’s “Teleological Argument”, he argues that just like an object in the world has an intelligent designer behind it, the universe most have an intelligent designer as well. This created must had been God. That there’s a “designer force” and that “designer force” is God. He argue that the supernatural force created the way we act today, that the supernatural force( god) organized the way the universe works, which makes an intelligent design( Paley 53).

The Argument from Design In William Paley’s “Argument from Design” he seeks to prove God’s existence by comparing the world and universe we live in to a machine, specifically a watch. The goal of the design argument is to prove the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good God through the watch analogy. The analogy tries to say that if we look at the creation of the universe like that of a watch, we can infer that it has a purpose and a designer. While this seems to be valid, there are some flaws in Paley’s argument that I will point out.

And yet, intelligent design theorists and Creationists look at nature and see the work of a divine designer, God, a reflection of his intentional purpose to create the universe. Where their theories are flawed with no real proof, Darwin uses inverse thinking that suggests that important things can indeed stem from unimportant things. Instead of relying on unproven mysteries to prove that God created the universe, evolutionists have scientific evidence to prove that no God was needed to create the universe. As scientific knowledge grows and more evidence of evolution is found, the story of evolution gains more strength, giving atheists more rational reasons to believe that God did not create the

The Design Argument, or teleological argument, focuses on Thomas Aquinas’ fifth proof for God’s existence. This proof states that if an event does not occur by coincidence or chance, then the aforementioned events are purposefully orchestrated or of a certain design. The teleological argument essentially implicates God as the ultimate designer and creator of all events and matters on earth; however, there has been much criticism of whether or not God is truly the

William Paley has a similar logical gap in his “Argument from Design,” but he attempts to address this issue in “Chapter V.” Previously in this argument, Paley attests that the nature of humans and their parts implies a designer. From the discussion in class, Paley’s argument can be organized as follows:

Some, such as Paley, aimed to defend this idea using teleological arguments. Such arguments insist on the existence of God by “attempting to identify features of the world that constitute evidence of intelligent design and inferring God’s existence as the best explanation for these features.” Paley compares a watch to living organisms by analogizing: “Watches are complex and good at doing their job (i.e. keeping time). Therefore, it is a result of intelligent design. Living organisms are complex and good at doing their job (i.e. surviving and reproducing). Therefore, they are a result of intelligent design.” Paley believes that if a watchmaker made a watch, then an intelligent designer made other elaborate things, such as the eye or flowers. A problem with this reasoning is that analogies are comparisons, not evidence. Comparing two not identical, but similar things does not make their conclusions equivalent; if one conclusion is true for one argument, it is not guaranteed to be true for the other. In this situation, concluding that a watch has an intelligent designer does not validate the notion that living organisms do as well. In rebuttal, theists attempt to thwart this with the theory of irreducible complexity, or the belief that some traits are too complex to have been produced by evolution’s slow step-by-step process. Similar to the watch, theists believe life is too complex to have been affected by evolution, and the best explanation for living organisms is that they are a result of intelligent

There are two basic theories in this debate. The first is the historical default, the creation model of origins. This theory maintains that the intricate design infiltrates all things, which implies a designer. The second theory is the more recent, atheistic explanation, the evolution model of origins. This theory suggests that the intricate design infiltrates all things and is a product of random chance and excessive time.

To argue from design is to argue from order to an end found in some thing or in a group of things to a cause capable of explaining that order. We observe that the parts of the eye work together so that we can see, and we wonder what is responsible for this order. We know that in the case of an artifact, the order of the parts in it to an end depends on there being an agent capable of planning it. To plan is to figure out appropriate means to achieve an end which one has fixed upon. A plan for a toaster would involve heating elements, a place to put the bread, and controls. Ideally, in addition to this plan, however, one would also have another sort of plan, namely, directions for how to realize the desired arrangement (as we all know from having tried to assemble something without reading the directions). In addition to plans, there must, of course, also be an agent with the power to realize them. The need for both planning and power to execute is sometimes overlooked: People sometimes mistakenly think that if one can identify efficient causes which realize order in the effect then there is no need to bring in a planner.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but it is a religion. It does not qualify as a science because it fails to be part of any general theory of how the natural world operates, instead it offers a supernatural causation. Intelligent design postulates that there are structures that are so complex that they had to be designed rather than have evolved by natural processes. In other words, if something is ‘irreducibly complex’ it was a product of intelligent design. Although such a contention alludes to a designer (god), supporters of intelligent design are cautious not to mention anything about the designer or why he/she work. The opponents of intelligent design have valuable argument to prove that it falls on a religious stance.