Frieden 1

Jeffrey I. Frieden

Dr. Idziak

Philosophy of God and Religion

18 February 2017

Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence: an Analysis

Let us suppose for a moment that I am a philosopher who does not currently

believe in God. Like Anthony Flew, however, I am committed to “following the evidence

wherever it leads”. In other words, I am willing to become a believer if I find good

evidence that God exists. The Anthropic Design Argument would convince me of God’s

existence, whereas William Paley’s Argument from Design and Intelligent Design would

not.

I. William Paley’s Argument from Design

In this argument, Paley argues that ordered systems found in the world indicate

an intelligent designer behind the world. This intelligent designer is what we would

describe as God. His argument, restated as an analogy, is as follows:

1. Human artifacts and the natural world both have the property of

displaying an adaptation of means to ends

2. Human artifacts have the additional property of being caused by a

designing mind

3. Therefore, the natural world probably also has the property of being

caused by a designing mind (Class notes 2/2/17).

To demonstrate this, Paley compares a telescope and an eye in his essay. He writes,

“…There is precisely the same proof that the eye was made for vision, as there is that the

telescope was made for assisting it. They are made upon the same principles; both being
 Frieden 2

adjusted to the laws which the transmission and refraction of the rays of light are

regulated…” (Paley 2014, 179). However, if one could demonstrate another, naturalistic

way to explain the adaptation of means to ends in nature, Paley’s argument would be

critically weakened.

Charles Darwin does just this with his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

Without describing the theory at length, it explains how the means adapted to the ends

without the need for a designer. Not only is it possible, evolution actually explains

biological structures better than Paley’s Argument from Design. For example, we can

describe the steps by which the eye evolved. F.S. Collins’ description of this deserves to

be quoted at length:

Even very simple organisms have light sensitivity, which helps them avoid

predators and seek food. Flatworms possess a simple pigmented pit,

containing light-detecting cells that provide some directionality to their

ability to perceive incoming photons. The elegant chambered nautilus

sports a modest advance, where this pit has been converted into a cavity

with just a pinhole to admit light. This considerably improves the

resolution of the apparatus, without requiring more than a subtle change

in the geometry of the surrounding tissue. Similarly, the addition of a

jellylike substance overlying the primitive light-sensitive cells in other

organisms enables some focusing of the light. It is not prohibitively

difficult, given hundreds of millions of years, how this system could have

evolved into the modern mammalian eye, complete with light-sensing

retina and light-focusing lens (The Language of God 2006, 191).

 Frieden 3

Further, the eye has a number of imperfections. If there were an intelligent designer

behind the eye, this would not be expected. These imperfections found in the eye,

however, are compatible with the eye having “evolved”. Thus Paley’s design argument

stands refuted by scientific evidence, specifically, by the scientific evidence for the

theory of evolution.

II. Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity

According to Intelligent Design, the theory of evolution does not explain all of the

biodiversity in the world. Namely, it cannot explain organisms which display irreducible

complexity. Natural Selection may still occur, but it does not play nearly as large a role

as some claim. The line of argument is as follows:

1. In nature, we find irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity denotes

organisms and processes which have multiple component parts, all of

which are necessary for the functioning of the system and which must be

present simultaneously. (e.g., the bacterial flagellum)

2. According to natural selection, small changes must have a functional

advantage in order to survive. If they do not, they are eliminated.

3. The individual component parts involved in irreducibly complex

organisms and processes do not have any functional advantage in

themselves; it is only when they are all put together that a functional

advantage occurs.

4. Therefore, Natural Selection cannot explain irreducibly complex

organisms and processes.

5. And so irreducible complexity points to an intelligent designer who

brought these organisms and processes about.

 Frieden 4

This poses a significant threat to the Theory of Evolution. Darwin himself said, “If it

could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have

been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely

break down” (Class notes 2/9/17). However, the Theory of Evolution can, in fact, explain

the development of “irreducibly complex” structures in a gradual, step-by-step process.

The mammalian eye is frequently used as an example of an “irreducibly complex”

structure in nature, despite a possible—and perhaps even probable—explanation for its

evolution recounted on page two of this paper. The poster child of the Intelligent Design

movement has been the bacterial flagellum. It is their favorite example of irreducible

complexity, but it is not irreducible. According to F. S. Collins, it could have started off

as a “type III secretory apparatus”, a type of bacterial offensive weapon, if you will. This

apparatus, which conferred a distinct survival advantage on those who wielded it, could

have, over hundreds of millions of years, combined with the other proteins present in

the bacteria to gain greater effectiveness in its role as a secretory apparatus until it was

sufficiently complex to be considered something else entirely: the bacterial flagellum (F.

S. Collins 2006, 192).

III. Anthropic Design Argument

The final argument we discussed was the Anthropic Design Argument as it was

put forward by Robin Collins. Simply stated, the laws and constant values of physics are

extremely fine-tuned to support life. The Big Bang had an extremely small window of

possible instances which would allow for the development of human life, or life at all, a

“Goldilocks’ zone” if you will. Not only was it “Not too hot and not too cold,” the weak

nuclear force is weak, but not too weak. The strong force is strong, but not too strong.

The gravitational constant is just right. Even the rate of expansion immediately after the
 Frieden 5

Big Bang was just right. In fact, “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang

had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would

have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.” (F. S. Collins 2006, 72-73) (F.S.

Collins quotes Stephen Hawking here). A similarly infinitesimal increase in the rate of

expansion would have prevented planets and stars from forming (ibid. 73). As you can

see, it is much more than “Not too hot and not too cold.” According to the Anthropic

Design Argument, it is so unlikely that this happened by chance that the universe must

have been designed. If it was designed, then it must have a designer, i.e. God.

Immediately after the Big Bang, if there would have been perfect symmetry

between matter and antimatter, then there would have been no matter left after matter

and antimatter interacted and obliterated each other, resulting in a universe of pure

radiation. This symmetry would have been more natural, but there was a slight

asymmetry (F. S. Collins 2006, 71-72). However, there was slightly more matter than

antimatter, allowing the universe as we know it—and ourselves—to exist. Furthermore,

there are 15 constants which cannot currently be predicted. Examples include the speed

of light, the weak and strong nuclear forces, the gravitational constant, and several

constants governing electromagnetic phenomena. These laws all had to be almost

exactly what they are in reality in order to allow for the creation of human life, not to

mention the rate of expansion of the universe discussed earlier. The chance of them

being what they are (and what we need) is incredibly small (F. S. Collins 2006, 74).

There is, however, an objection. It is known as the Grand Unified Theory

Objection. In short, it proposes that someday all of the laws of physics will be explained

by a Grand Unified Theory so that we don’t need to invoke a designer (God) to explain
 Frieden 6

why these parameters have life-permitting values. Robin Collins answers this objection,

and her answer deserves to be quoted at length:

Hence, it is argued, we do not need to invoke a designer to explain why

these parameters have life-permitting values. However, as astrophysicists

Bernard Carr and Martin Rees note, ‘even if all apparently anthropic

coincidences could be explained [in terms of such a unified theory], it

would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory

happened also to be those propitious for life.’ For the theist, then, the

development of a grand unified theory would not undercut the case for

divine creation, but would only serve to deepen our appreciation of the

ingenuity of the creator.” (The Anthropic Teleological Argument 2014,

194)

There is another objection to the Anthropic Teleological Argument: the

Multiverse Hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that there is an infinite or nearly

infinite number of universes, and ours just so happens to be one that can produce life.

These hypothetical universes can either occur concurrently or sequentially, and they

each have a different mix of constants. If there is an infinite number of universes, then it

follows that at least one of them will happen to be a universe where every constant has

just the right value to support life. This hypothesis is untestable. By their very definition,

other universes are unobservable, violating science’s condition of a hypothesis being

empirically verifiable. In other words, these other universes are just as hypothetical as

God. Since Ockham’s Razor states that the best answer is the one that proposes the

fewest hypothetical entities while still explaining that which is observed, the proposition
 Frieden 7

that there is one God is more worthy of our belief than the proposition that we live in

one of many, many universes.

In light of the aforementioned evidence, the Anthropic Design Argument

convinces me of the existence of God. That the universe is, despite all odds, suitable to

sustain human life is evidence enough of God. The Argument from Design and

Intelligent Design arguments, however, are not convincing. They are refuted by

scientific evidence, whereas the Anthropic Design Argument is supported and made

possible by science. It is an argument for God rising from faith and reason.
 Frieden 8

Works Cited

Collins, Francis S. The Language of God. New York: Free Press, 2006.

Collins, Robin. "The Anthropic Teleological Argument." In Philosophy of God and

Religion: Selected Readings, by Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce

Reichenbach, & David Basinger, 187-195. New York: Oxford University Press,

2014.

Paley, William. "The Analogical Teleological Argument." In Philosophy of Religion:

Selected Readings, by Michael Peterson, Hasker William, Bruce Reichenback, &

David Basinger, 177-179. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.