In “The Argument of Design,” William Paley argues that the universe has a designer. The need for an intelligent designer is portrayed through his comparison between a watch and the human eye. In this paper, I will critically evaluate William Paley’s argument by giving a brief summery of the content I will be focusing on and discuss how I believe that his arguments are not valid.
To begin with, Paley portrayed a situation of viewing a rock and asking where it came from. He answered this by concluding that it had been there forever since it is just a simple object, but it would have been different if it were a complex object, like a watch. The answer to the question would be different if the object was a watch because a watch is a complex, the parts are put together in a specific way, it has a specific purpose, thus, it must have a designer because it could not have just been there (Paley 58). This claim could be represented by this argument:
P1): A watch is a complex object
P2): Complex objects need a designer
C): Thus, a watch has a designer
The argument thus far do seem strong and valid, meaning that if the premises were true, the conclusion would also be true, but Paley uses this as an argument to portray that the universe must have an intelligent designer.
Paley beings to describe the human eye and depicts its structure. He then mentions that it differentiates from the eye of a fish because the eye a fish is rounds and helps them in water. He also mentions the eye of a bird and how it helps them see near objects because it is a necessity. He uses these facts to come to his final conclusion: the universe is so complex that there must be a powerful, intelligent designer that created it (Paley 32). Paley does mention that the...
... middle of paper ...
... is a designer does not necessary mean that it has to be perfect (Paley 30).
Thirdly, there is no designer because some parts of the watch do not have a function. Paley responds by stating that just because we are not currently aware of the function of some parts of the watch, it does not mean that they actually do not have a function (Paley 30).
Fourthly, the objection that the watch is a chance event is dismissed by Paley by stating that it being a chance is impossible to believe because no body in their right sense would think that.
The objection that there is a law or principle that disposed the watch and made it be in that form is dismissed by Paley because he indicated that the principle of order cannot create the existence of a complex object.
Works Cited
William, Paley. "The Argument from Design." PHL 110. Toronto: James Cunningham, 2013. 58-65. Print.
The ability to compare the universe to a watch allows for familiarity, which is what I believe draws agreement and acknowledgement of his argument. It is thought that, as humans, we have at least one person in existence that is aware of how to put together a properly functioning watch, and we know that a watch needs to be put together intelligently. Given Paley’s reasoning he presents that the world is also intricately made which creates a parallel between a watch in the universe, giving individuals a sense of familiarity. As such, it naturally follows that there ought to be a universe maker, or God, who appears to be the only one capable of doing such a thing. Primarily, my concern is that the intelligent maker must be God; Paley merely assumes that the reader agrees and gives no further insight on why the creator must be God. Furthermore, he assumes the universe works without proof or any real knowledge which seems a rather fatal flaw. It is irresponsible to believe that the universe works the way we assume to fulfill our desire to explain the existence of God, similar to Mackie’s objection to the cosmological argument (Mackie 171). I do not believe Paley’s argument survives Hume’s objection due to the necessity of experience. He merely uses analogy to justify his claim; the only difference is that he has experience with a watch and none in regards to the universe. Again, he is
Philo on the other hands contends that Cleanthes cannot objectively make that claim. Philo recognizes the problems that Cleanthes’s argument of design brings by being a priori, he recognizes how the causes and effects affect the overall argument made by Cleanthes and is able to pin point where it was this was problematic, that order may not necessarily exist due to an intelligent designer, and that since humans where not all knowing like God there were some aspects that Cleanthes argues are just impossible to know with their limited intellect. In part 2 Philo effectively communicates to Cleanthes that his claims could be reduced to speculation as opposed to being regarded as matters of
Many of us know that a watch indeed does have a designer, but what if we had never seen a watch made before or known of anyone capable of such design? Lacking this knowledge, Paley argues, should raise no doubt in our mind that the object must have a designer. Even if the watch told the wrong time most of the time, Paley says that the intended purpose of the watch to tell time is still obvious. Paley says we should still conclude that the watch ...
In very complex machines, missing or undiscovered parts are more likely to arise; yet, such disorder would no doubt make an individual more curious as to the objects purpose. Although in some cases, a part may seem useless, the individual would continue to question and wonder what purpose that part serves. No one could believe that the watch was assembled together with sheer luck; therefore, an intelligent designer exists. The watch is definitely not made by the principle of order and it is not believable to say or think that the watch was not invented. Design cannot exist without the designer. Every appearance of design, which exists in the watch, exists in the works of nature. While the world is far more complex than a simplistic instrument, like a watch, it is no different when compared at the base levels, especially when seeing that both are so mechanical, showing elements of order.
The teleological argument begins by stating a special kind of argument, an a posteriori argument. An a posteriori argument is an argument based on the knowledge of experiences encountered in the world. For Paley, the a posteriori argument is established as he imagines himself nature walking, only to stumble upon a watch: a pocket watch, whose function is made visible through a transparent glass and made possible through gears and springs. Paley retrieves the watch and questions how such an object came to be in the middle of vegetation and is easily intrigued to reflect about the nature of the watch. Let us reflect about the physical attributes of the watch. Imagine for a second that the body of the watch was covered in highly polished gold metal and in the middle of its body laid a transparent glass. The glass lets us see two disproportionate metallic rods whose ends are encrusted with small diamonds. Apart from ...
The Teleological argument attempts to prove that a god designed the universe. Consider that a person comes across a watch in a field. The field is filled with various natural forms of vegetation. In contrast with the various natural constructs (like stones, trees, and bushes) the watch is seemingly out of place. The person has no idea how it got there, although it is evident that the watch was created for telling time. This scenario is reliant on eight tenants proposed by William Paley. The person has never seen, nor has any idea, regarding how a watch is made. The watch is assumed to sometimes be built incorrectly and malfunction. The function of some of the watch’s parts is unknown. Of many potential forms the watch could inhabit, this is only one. An overarching principle or plan was used to construct the watch. Finally, it is irrelevant whether we know nothing about design on...
John Polkinghorne’s The Universe as Creation does its best to not convince the reader of Intelligent Design, but rather to dissuade the reader from the notion that although the is intelligently designed, but in this way, it has made science possible.
1. Briefly describe William Paley’s Argument from design. Explain how Darwinian evolution can be used to refute this argument. (5 pts)
The reason why the argument fails is because Paley put’s emphasis on giving things a single sole purpose. If things had multiple purposes from Paley’s point of view then it would be a lot more difficult to strike the argument down. This argument also shows the 3 point rule god. Paley has shown in this argument that god is all good, all powerful, and all knowing. The argument also gives a good argument as to how certain things must have intelligent design in order for it to be created. This is where I believe it mostly thrives. If we were to look at another argument like The Ontological Argument it states that the greatest thing that we can conceive exists in the mind, but it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind, but if nothing greater than god can be conceived in the mind then god must exist in reality. This argument can easily be torn apart if someone just believes that god is not the greatest thing that can be conceived. It also does not prove god’s existence throughout the world physically, but with the mind. Where as Paley’s argument shows god through the “creations” he has created and explaining how god is the
The first argument to be discussed is that of conceivability, which aims to disprove that the mind and
The Intelligent Design argument is the most recent formulation of the teleological argument. “Proponents point out that although we cannot know that something has not been designed, we can detect design in systems whose functions are irreducibly complex” (Peterson 108). These systems are single systems where each has parts that contribute to the basic function. Therefore, the removal of any of these parts would cause the system to stop functioning. Overtime these systems produce a result better than what each part would have produced separately. This theory also disputes that the process of natural selection is enough to explain the complexity of living organisms. The theory states that the complexity must come from the work of an intelligent designer.
William Paley went on to use the analogy of a watch, he asked us to
...hat the universe is not the same as a human and these two vastly different ideas cannot be compared with each other, Paley argues that the purpose of a watch in terms of its function and complexity, that it had to be created by a designer. Same goes for humans. Hume proves that Paley has a weak conclusion by stating that this does not prove that there is a God, just someone of higher intelligence.
...ion of patterns of emergence, however he lacks the unwillingness to differentiate (weak when applying the theories to modern technological advances) between spontaneous emergence and evolved systems in science.
The “ten commandments” of Dieter Rams concerning what a good design is or should be summarizes the essentials of a good design. What this paper seeks to do is to analyze and scrutinize these statements alongside Dieter Rams’ speech, discussing whether these principles capture what a good design is and what is not, making modifications to the principles where necessary.