The Design Argument In his book, Natural Theology, William Paley presents the classic expression of the Design Argument. Comparison of a watch and human eye, fish fin, bird wings. Each seems to present evidence of design, of fitness for purpose. The cosmos appears to present evidence of design. Cosmos design shows both beauty and intricate construction. Comparison/analogy suggests that if a watch must have a maker so too must a cosmos bearing the marks of design….that designer must be God. Only God could be the creator/designer of something like a cosmos. Design Argument also known as the Teleological Argument from the Greek “telos” – “end/purpose”

Design Argument: Anthropic Argument Anthropo (Gk) = human. Structure of the cosmos leads inevitably to the development of intelligent, human like creatures. Known also as “Goldilocks Factor” – not too hot, not too cold – just right. (Paul Davies and others) All the features of the universe, its’ physics and chemistry have to be just as they are for us to develop in the sort of world we have. This is Intelligent Design. A hair breadth either way and life could not have developed. Note strong and weak versions. P58. This is evidence of God designing for humans – life on razor edge could not be chance surely.

Design Argument: The Strengths. The argument has emotional power – we feel or intuit the cosmos to be meaningful/purposeful. The argument has aesthetic power – it makes sense of our feelings of awe and wonder. The argument makes sense of our belief that life is more than mere selfish survival – it involves creative flourishing. It corresponds to the Christian belief in God as creator. Hard to accept pure chance constructs the cosmos and us – like a whirlwind constructing a jet plane from scrap yard junk. (Physicist James Jeans.) Argument accepted by thousands of scientists. New discoveries in genetics, physics, natural history only strengthen sense of wonder & design.

Design Argument: Limitations. David Hume criticised the Design Argument in his “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. There is evidence of bad design too – ugliness, disorder, suffering. The problem of evil – if a good, omnipotent God, why suffering? Earthquakes, disease, the wastefulness of life (quoll) point to an incompetent designer rather than an omnipotent God. Paley’s comparison is invalid – the cosmos is more like organic vegetable matter which just grew, than it is like a watch. We are not the planned end product, we are just the latest in a line in which other versions have failed – fits evolutionary theory. Why just one designer, why not many? Deism – God creates but leaves us – not the Christian position. Aesthetic qualities help us value our environment – survival devices.

Some Further Discussion Moral Evil/suffering is caused by man rather than God. Humans must have free will or they are just robots. Like a parent after creation the creator cannot be responsible for what free people do. This type of universe is the only kind that can exist if humans are to be free – there has to be growth and challenge for it to be real. This view allows for evolution as God’s creative method. BUT Dostoevsky asks in the Brothers Karamazov if we would, given the choice, create a cosmos if we knew that even one child had to suffer? Is God really responsible after all – he knew what would happen? Ursula K Le Guin story – The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas asks a similar question.