The Analogical Teleological Argument

Yet another paper I wrote for my grad class. It discusses an article by William Paley entitled The Analogical Teleological Argument. This is another nerdy, read at your own risk article. My thanks once again to Dr. Rubel Shelly for his corrections, suggestions, and challenges that helped shape this paper. I am now "caught up" on posting these things, so hopefully I will have something a little lighter next time. ;-)

--------------------------------------------------------

Paley begins his essay contrasting the difference between discovering a stone and a watch. While a stone has little visible sign of design, a watch, with all of its intricate moving parts, cries out for a creator. The way that all of the parts work together tells us "that there must have existed at some time, and some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer: who comprehended its construction and designed its use."

Paley continues by providing a number of supporting thoughts to defend his argument for design:

• The conclusion is not weakened if we have never seen a watch made.


• If the watch does not always run exactly right, it does not invalidate the conclusion.


• If we do not understand the role of each part, that does not bring uncertainty to our argument.


• One should not argue this was just one of many possible combinations that would have worked.


• We cannot imagine a principle of order apart from the intelligence of the watchmaker.


• It would be surprising to think that the mechanism of the watch was only there to make us think it was designed.


• It would be just as surprising to argue that the watch was simply the result of the laws of metallic nature.


• Being told you know nothing about the matter does not drive us from our conclusion.

After laying out his argument, Paley compares an eye to a telescope. As much as the telescope has an obvious creator, the eye, an even more complicated "device," must have a creator. He also argues that "the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art in the complexity, subtly, and curiosity of the mechanism." The complexity of the eye – and its greater complexity than a telescope – confirms a creator.

Paley concludes his argument by comparing the eye and the watch. He reminds us once again that this is a matter of examining the evidence. I believe that Paley’s argument supports the belief in a creator. The intricate design of so many parts of creation points to an ultimate designer.

It is difficult to comprehend a world as complex as ours evolving into what it is today. Something as simple as a single human organ (e.g., kidney, brain) shows the complexity of our bodies. I am convinced that the more we learn through science and research, the more Paley’s argument is reinforced. As science discovers more and more about the intricate design of the human body and other aspects of creation, the Teleological Argument becomes even stronger evidence for the existence of God. As evidence for this, one need only take account of the recent works of such scientists as Gerald Schroeder and the impact of their science-based arguments on philosophers such as Antony Flew.

The popularity of Paley’s well-known argument declined dramatically in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries because of the work of Charles Darwin. Darwin’s evolutionary model claimed that the (apparent) order in living things has resulted from natural selection rather than divine creation. Today Paley’s argument is finding renewed debate and discussion as the "Intelligent Design" movement and scientists such as Richard Dawkins reconsider Paley’s argument in light of recent scientific discoveries.

While I believe Paley’s argument makes some excellent points, there is at least one area of possible weakness that merits discussion. As a "creation focused" argument, Paley’s argument could be used by a Deist as well as one who believes in the God who continues to work in the world. To be fair, I don’t believe that Paley set out to prove the existence of a God though His ongoing works. Rather, he hoped to consider the evidence from creation and show that this line of thought is a strong argument for the existence of God as a Creator.