Another very popular classical argument is called the Teleological Argument. The name comes from the Greek word “telos” which means “purpose, end, or goal.” The argument was popularized by William Paley who argued that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. And yet said Paley, the watch is not nearly as complex as your hand. The Teleological Argument argues then that the existence of a designer can be deduced by the complexity or the purpose seen in a system. Here it is in deductiveform:
#1 Purpose and design in a system implies a designer
#2 The universe shows purpose and design
#3 Therefore, the universe has a designer
Premise #1 is argued to be self evident. For example, it's obvious that there is a difference between the Rocky Mountains and Mount Rushmore - one is designed the other is not. Premise #2 is what makes the argument fun because it is usually argued by listing unimaginably impressive scientific data and statistics. For instance, "Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopaedia Britannica."* Such complexity could never arise by chance. Here are some more examples:
-The odds of amino acids forming a simple protein by chance are less than 1 in 10 with 65 zeros behind it.*
-The simplest amoeba cell is made of about 2,000 proteins. The chances of this organism arising randomly is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. To get an idea of how big that number is - the number of atoms in the entire universe is only 10 to the 80th power.*
-see below for more fine tuning
Strengths:
- The argument can be very persuasive due to the impressive scientific data and improbabilities.
- Also, premise #2 is almost unanimously agreed on, even by secular scientists.
- It does not argue for God, let alone the Christian God, but only for a designer.
- It does not argue for the direct creation of the universe.
- Also, you must be well acquainted with science to use the argument forcefully.
- Rom. 1:20; Acts 14:17, Psalms 8:3-4 and 19:1-6; Proverbs 8:22-31; Isaiah 40:26; Genesis 1:2-31
Do you think this argument is successful? What are some common objections? Perhaps you have a question. Feel free to leave a comment so that I can respond and not be bored at work!
* George Sim Johnson, ‘Did Darwin Get It Right?’ http://www.bethinking.org/advanced/does-science-contradict-religion.htm
*http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Evidence_for_God_From_the_Design
Here are some responses people give.
ReplyDelete1. The argument assumes that life is special. Any state of affairs is equally improbable, so it only matters if this assumption is true.
2.The multiverse hypothesis could potentially explain the fine tuning. A sufficient number of universes could create this world by chance.
3. The improbability calculations depend on the range of possible values. If the possible values of these constants is infinite, than the fine tuning is no more improbable than any other range of values (no matter how large). In other words, the fine tuning would be no more compelling than "coarse" tuning.
These are some things i've heard, at least.
thanks for the time and response!
DeleteFor the first one, I think it is correct to say that the argument assumes that life is special. However, I don't think it's is a wrong assumption. There does seem to be something special and unique about a family of four that cannot be attributed to a pile of rocks. Also, a denial of this assumption is a step towards nihilism (someone could say, "yes, so what", but that opens another can of worms. So I'll just leave it at that).
For number two, the science and research behind the multiverse theory is beyond me. I'll just throw down this link and pretend I know what he's talking about:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkpEzOM2gIc
And for number three, I'm honestly not sure if I understand the objection. Could you help me understand what you mean by "possible values"? Do you mean to say that the multiverse hypothesis could account for an infinite number of universes and therefore an infinite number of possible values? If the second part of the objection is meant to say that every set of values or constants is just as likely as any other set, then I think I would want to agree. Still, they strangely conform to a particular pattern that specifically allows for life. For example, if I threw a thousand quarters into the air, any arrangements of heads and tails are just as likely as the next. But if all one thousand quarters landed heads we would all freak out. Similarly, any hand in poker is just as unlikely as the next, but if your opponent played a suit of diamonds Royal Straight Flush twenty times in a row you would raise your eyebrows. That's because there is a pattern being followed. Just as the unfortunate poker player is suspecting that the deck has been rigged in favor of his opponent, so we too suspect that the universe has been rigged in favor of life. At least, so goes the argument.
Not totally sure if I understood you on that last one, but thanks for taking the time to stop by and share your thoughts!
Wooooo my babe is so complex! Just like the universe! What I loved most about this blog entry: the picture of the monkey! LOL! So cute :)
ReplyDelete