DARWINIST OBJECTIONS The Design or Teleological Argument

Charles Darwin ( ) Naturalist and first exponent of the theory of evolution. Expected to join the Anglican priesthood and studied theology, but became more interested in natural history. Travelled to the Galapagos Islands; his experience of the animal life there inspired him to develop his ideas. Darwin kept his ideas secret for a long time, eventually publishing them in 1859.

Watch and add to your notes… 1. Luke Pollard film extract 2. Dawkins: “It’s all in the eye” in-the-eye/454.html

Extract from Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859): Let it also be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close- fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life; and consequently what infinitely varied diversities of structure might be of use to each being under changing conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. Why does this cause a problem for the design argument? Which aspects of Paley’s argument are challenged by Darwinism? How damaging is the Darwinist objection to the design argument? Does it rule it out completely?

Questions: Why does this cause a problem for the design argument? Which aspects of Paley’s argument are challenged by Darwinism? How damaging is the Darwinist objection to the design argument? Does it rule it out completely?

Counter points See the ‘Intelligent Design’ movement – it claims the theory of evolution is wrong or over-stated (note: this has little / no scientific support). God may have caused the process of evolution as a means of bringing order and purpose into the universe (James Sadowsky). Evolution depends on a careful balance of conditions, possibly caused by God (F.R. Tennant – the ‘anthropic principle’).

ch?v=NjsIn7yd2x8 The ‘Intelligent Design’ Movement

Intelligent Design A group of scientists and mathematicians at the Discovery Institute have argued that Darwin was wrong about natural selection. The complexity of nature may be due to Intelligent Design. Michael Behe – organisms like the venus flytrap display ‘irreducible complexity’. They have too many component parts to be explained through natural selection. Bacterial flagellum – very complicated.

Criticism of Intelligent Design The evolution of complex organisms is difficult to explain, but it does not mean that they cannot be explained. ‘Tricky’ examples hardly disprove Darwinism. Biologist Richard Dawkins argues that Intelligent Design has no genuine scientific basis; not a single member of this movement is published in a serious scientific journal. The attempt to teach ‘Intelligent Design’ as a scientific theory is an under-hand attempt to undermine secular education.

Responding to Darwinism Is there any way religious believers can respond to the challenge from Darwinism? Could you re-formulate the argument, so that it can survive these criticisms? - See Anthropic Principle

Student Presentations In small groups, you must create a PowerPoint on how Darwin’s ideas affect the argument from design. Students must include: -Introduction on Darwin and his theories. -Explanation of how his ideas on evolution affect the argument from design. (KEY SECTION) Students should also try to include: -Intelligent design response. -Arguments of modern Darwinists (eg. Dawkins). -Possible re-workings of the design argument eg. Anthropic Principle.