Teleological argument

==Recent proponents==

===Probabilistic arguments===
In 1928 and 1930, [[Frederick Robert Tennant|F. R. Tennant]] published his ''Philosophical Theology'', which was a "bold endeavour to combine scientific and theological thinking".<ref>"Tennant, Frederick Robert". ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]''.</ref> He proposed a version of the teleological argument based on the accumulation of the probabilities of each individual [[biological adaptation]]. "Tennant concedes that naturalistic accounts such as evolutionary theory may explain each of the individual adaptations he cites, but he insists that in this case the whole exceeds the sum of its parts: naturalism can explain each adaptation but not their totality."<ref name="Rout" /> The ''[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'' notes that "Critics have insisted on focusing on the cogency of each piece of theistic evidence – reminding us that, in the end, ten leaky buckets hold no more water than one." Also, "Some critics, such as [[John Hick]] and D.H. Mellor, have objected to Tennant's particular use of probability theory and have challenged the relevance of any kind of probabilistic reasoning to theistic belief."<ref name="Rout">Craig, E. 1998. "Tennant, Frederick Robert (1866–1957)." ''[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]''. London: [[Taylor & Francis]].</ref>

[[Richard Swinburne]]'s "contributions to philosophical theology have sought to apply more sophisticated versions of probability theory to the question of God's existence, a methodological improvement on Tennant's work but squarely in the same spirit".<ref name="Rout" /> He uses [[Bayesian probability]] "taking account not only of the order and functioning of nature but also of the 'fit' between human intelligence and the universe, whereby one can understand its workings, as well as human aesthetic, moral, and religious experience".<ref name="EB">"Christian philosophy". ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]''.</ref> Swinburne writes:<ref>[[Richard Swinburne|Swinburne, Richard]]. 2004. ''The Existence of God''. Oxford: [[Oxford University Press]]. p. 166.</ref>
{{blockquote|text=[T]he existence of order in the world confirms the existence of God if and only if the existence of this order in the world is more probable if there is a God than if there is not. ... the probability of order of the right kind is very much greater if there is a God, and so that the existence of such order adds greatly to the probability that there is a God.}}

Swinburne acknowledges that his argument by itself may not give a reason to believe in the existence of God, but in combination with other arguments such as [[cosmological argument]]s and evidence from [[mystical experience]], he thinks it can.

While discussing Hume's arguments, [[Alvin Plantinga]] offered a probability version of the teleological argument in his book ''[[God and Other Minds]]'':<ref>[[Alvin Plantinga|Plantinga, A.]] [1967] 1990. ''[[God and Other Minds|God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God]]''. [[Cornell University Press]]. p.&nbsp;104.</ref>

{{Poem quote|text=Every contingent object such that we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design, was the product of intelligent design.
The universe is a contingent object.
So probably the universe is designed.}}

Following Plantinga, Georges Dicker produced a slightly different version in his book about [[Bishop Berkeley]]:<ref>Dicker, G. 2011. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=5yVwAgAAQBAJ Berkeley's Idealism: A Critical Examination]''. Oxford: [[Oxford University Press]]. [https://books.google.com/books?id=5yVwAgAAQBAJ&dq=plantinga+++%22argument+from+design%22&pg=PA262 p.&nbsp;262].</ref>

{{Poem quote|text=A. The world ... shows amazing teleological order.
B. All Objects exhibiting such order ... are products of intelligent design.
C. Probably the world is a result of intelligent design.
D. Probably, God exists and created the world.}}

The ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' has the following criticism of such arguments:<ref name="EB" />
{{blockquote|text=It can of course be said that any form in which the universe might be is statistically enormously improbable as it is only one of a virtual infinity of possible forms. But its actual form is no more improbable, in this sense, than innumerable others. It is only the fact that humans are part of it that makes it seem so special, requiring a transcendent explanation.}}

=== Fine-tuned universe ===
{{Main|Fine-tuned universe}}

A modern variation of the teleological argument is built upon the concept of the [[fine-tuned universe]]: According to the website ''[[BioLogos|Biologos]]'':<ref name="biologos.org">{{Cite web |title=What is the "fine-tuning" of the universe, and how does it serve as a "pointer to God"? &#124; BioLogos |url=http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141221081439/http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning |archive-date=2014-12-21 |access-date=2015-01-11}}</ref>
{{blockquote|text=Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature's physical constants, and the beginning state of the Universe. To explain the present state of the universe, even the best scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature and the beginning state of the Universe have extremely precise values.}}

Also, the fine-tuning of the Universe is the apparent delicate balance of conditions necessary for human life. In this view, speculation about a vast range of possible conditions in which life cannot exist is used to explore the probability of conditions in which life can and does exist. For example, it can be argued that if the force of the [[Big Bang]] explosion had been different by 1/10 to the sixtieth power or the [[strong interaction|strong interaction force]] was only 5% different, life would be impossible.<ref name="Himma2009"/> Noted physicist [[Stephen Hawking]] estimates that "if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball due to gravitational attraction".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=White |first1=Martin |last2=Kochanek |first2=C. S. |year=2001 |title=Constraints on the Long‐Range Properties of Gravity from Weak Gravitational Lensing |journal=The Astrophysical Journal |volume=560 |issue=2 |pages=539–543 |arxiv=astro-ph/0105227 |bibcode=2001ApJ...560..539W |doi=10.1086/323074 |s2cid=11812709}}</ref> In terms of a teleological argument, the intuition in relation to a fine-tuned universe would be that God must have been responsible, if achieving such perfect conditions is so improbable.<ref name="biologos.org" /><ref name="Himma2009">{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Design Arguments for the Existence of God |encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/design |access-date=November 19, 2011 |date=12 April 2009 |author=Himma, Kenneth Einar}}</ref> However, in regard to fine-tuning, [[Kenneth Einar Himma]] writes: "The mere fact that it is enormously improbable that an event occurred... by itself, gives us no reason to think that it occurred by design ... As intuitively tempting as it may be..."<ref name="Himma2009" /> Himma attributes the "Argument from Suspicious Improbabilities", a formalization of "the fine-tuning intuition" to [[George N. Schlesinger]]:
{{blockquote|text=To understand Schlesinger's argument, consider your reaction to two different events. If John wins a 1-in-1,000,000,000 lottery game, you would not immediately be tempted to think that John (or someone acting on his behalf) cheated. If, however, John won three consecutive 1-in-1,000 lotteries, you would immediately be tempted to think that John (or someone acting on his behalf) cheated. Schlesinger believes that the intuitive reaction to these two scenarios is epistemically justified. The structure of the latter event is such that it… justifies a belief that intelligent design is the cause… Despite the fact that the probability of winning three consecutive 1-in-1,000 games is exactly the same as the probability of winning one 1-in-1,000,000,000 game, the former event… warrants an inference of intelligent design.}}

Himma considers Schlesinger's argument to be subject to the same vulnerabilities he noted in other versions of the design argument:<ref name="Himma2009" />
{{blockquote|text=While Schlesinger is undoubtedly correct in thinking that we are justified in suspecting design in the case [of winning] three consecutive lotteries, it is because—and only because—we know two related empirical facts about such events. First, we already know that there exist intelligent agents who have the right motivations and causal abilities to deliberately bring about such events. Second, we know from past experience with such events that they are usually explained by the deliberate agency of one or more of these agents. Without at least one of these two pieces of information, we are not obviously justified in seeing design in such cases {{omission}} [T]he problem for the fine-tuning argument is that we lack both of the pieces that are needed to justify an inference of design. First, the very point of the argument is to establish the fact that there exists an intelligent agency that has the right causal abilities and motivations to bring the existence of a universe capable of sustaining life. Second, and more obviously, we do not have any past experience with the genesis of worlds and are hence not in a position to know whether the existence of fine-tuned universes are usually explained by the deliberate agency of some intelligent agency. Because we lack this essential background information, we are not justified in inferring that there exists an intelligent Deity who deliberately created a universe capable of sustaining life.}}

[[Antony Flew]], who spent most of his life as an atheist, converted to [[deism]] late in life, and postulated "an intelligent being as involved in some way in the design of conditions that would allow life to arise and evolve".<ref name="Diogenes">{{Cite book |last=Allen, Diogenes |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ouWlkBXeg5IC&q=anthropic+principle+antony+flew&pg=PA42 |title=Theology for a Troubled Believer: An Introduction to the Christian Faith |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-664-22322-9 |page=42}}</ref> He concluded that the fine-tuning of the universe was too precise to be the result of chance, so accepted the existence of God. He said that his commitment to "go where the evidence leads" meant that he ended up accepting the existence of God.<ref>{{Cite book |last=D'Souza, Dinesh |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vVXf2PV8pyQC&q=anthropic%20principle%20antony%20flew&pg=PA133 |title=What's so great about Christianity |publisher=Regnery |year=2007 |isbn=978-1-59698-517-9 |pages=132–3}}</ref> Flew proposed the view, held earlier by [[Fred Hoyle]], that the universe is too young for life to have developed purely by chance and that, therefore, an intelligent being must exist which was involved in designing the conditions required for life to evolve.<ref name="Diogenes" />
{{blockquote|text=Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would ... A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.<ref name="Hoyle1981">{{Cite journal |last=Hoyle |first=Fred |date=November 1981 |title=The Universe: Past and Present Reflections |journal=Engineering and Science |pages=8–12}}</ref>|author=Fred Hoyle|title=Engineering and Science|source=The Universe: Past and Present Reflections}}

=== Creation science and intelligent design ===
{{Main|Intelligent design}}
A version of the argument from design is central to both [[creation science]] and [[Intelligent design]],<ref name="SM 07" /> but unlike Paley's openness to [[deism|deistic]] design through God-given laws, proponents seek scientific confirmation of repeated miraculous interventions in the history of life, and argue that their [[theistic science]] should be taught in science classrooms.<ref name="PM 09">[[Kevin Padian|Padian, Kevin]], and [[Nick Matzke|Nicholas Matzke]]. 2009. "Darwin, Dover, 'Intelligent Design' and textbooks". ''[[Biochemical Journal]]'' 417(1):29–42. {{doi|10.1042/bj20081534}}. {{PMID|19061485}}.</ref>

The teaching of [[evolution]] was effectively barred from United States public school curricula by the outcome of the 1925 [[Scopes Trial]], but in the 1960s the [[National Defense Education Act]] led to the [[Biological Sciences Curriculum Study]] reintroducing the teaching of evolution. In response, there was a resurgence of [[creationism]], now presented as "creation science", based on biblical literalism but with Bible quotes optional. ("Explicit references to the Bible were optional: Morris's 1974 book ''Scientific Creationism'' came in two versions, one with Bible quotes, and one without.")<ref name="SM 07" />

A 1989 survey found that virtually all literature promoting creation science presented the design argument, with [[John D. Morris]] saying "any living thing gives such strong evidence for design by an intelligent designer that only a willful ignorance of the data (II Peter 3:5) could lead one to assign such intricacy to chance". Such publications introduced concepts central to intelligent design, including ''[[irreducible complexity]]'' (a variant of the watchmaker analogy) and ''[[specified complexity]]'' (closely resembling a fine-tuning argument). The [[United States Supreme Court]] ruling on ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'' barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools because it breached the [[Separation of church and state in the United States|separation of church and state]], and a group of creationists rebranded Creation Science as "intelligent design" which was presented as a scientific theory rather than as a religious argument.<ref name="SM 07">[[Eugenie Scott|Scott, Eugenie C.]] 2007. "[https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/104/suppl_1/8669.full.pdf Biological design in science classrooms]". ''[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America|Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]]'' 104(suppl. 1):8669–76. {{doi|10.1073/pnas.0701505104}}. {{PMID|17494747}}. {{PMC|1876445}}.</ref>

Scientists disagreed with the assertion that intelligent design is scientific, and its introduction into the science curriculum of a [[Pennsylvania]] school district led to the 2005 ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' trial, which ruled that the "intelligent design" arguments are essentially religious in nature and not science.<ref name="Pigliucci2010" /> The court took evidence from theologian [[John F. Haught]], and ruled that "ID is not a new scientific [[argument]], but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer." "This argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley": "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God."<ref>{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}}, [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 24 of 139|Ruling, p. 24]].</ref>

Proponents of the [[intelligent design movement]] such as Cornelius G. Hunter, have asserted that the methodological [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]] upon which science is based is religious in nature.<ref>"Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism". Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, (2007)</ref> They commonly refer to it as 'scientific materialism' or as 'methodological materialism' and conflate it with 'metaphysical naturalism'.<ref>[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism]: Clarifying the Connection (2000), [[Barbara Forrest]], Retrieved 2007-05-20.</ref> They use this assertion to support their claim that modern science is atheistic, and contrast it with their preferred approach of a revived [[natural philosophy]] which welcomes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and supports [[Theistic realism|theistic science]]. This ignores the distinction between science and religion, established in Ancient Greece, in which science can not use supernatural explanations.<ref name="Pigliucci2010">{{Cite book |last=Pigliucci |first=Massimo |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aC8Baky2qTcC&pg=PA177 |title=Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-226-66786-7 |page=177 |lccn=2009049778 |quote=[E]ven back in Aristotle's time, a fundamental assumption of doing things scientifically is that the supernatural is out: no explanations that invoke non-natural causes are allowed.}}</ref>

Intelligent design advocate and [[biochemist]] [[Michael Behe]] proposed a development of Paley's watch analogy in which he argued in favour of intelligent design. Unlike Paley, Behe only attempts to prove the existence of an intelligent designer, rather than the God of classical theism. Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to propose [[irreducible complexity]]: he argues that if a mousetrap loses just one of its parts, it can no longer function as a mousetrap. He argues that irreducible complexity in an object guarantees the presence of intelligent design. Behe claims that there are instances of irreducible complexity in the natural world and that parts of the world must have been designed.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Oppy, Graham |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DlVtfUxPD14C&q=behe&pg=PA187 |title=Arguing About Gods |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-521-86386-5 |pages=187–189}}</ref> This negative argument against step by step evolution ignores longstanding evidence that evolution proceeds through [[exaptation|changes of function]] from preceding systems. The specific examples Behe proposes have been shown to have simpler [[Homology (biology)|homologues]] which could act as precursors with different functions. His arguments have been rebutted, both in general and in specific cases by numerous scientific papers.{{Citation needed|date=October 2018}} {{Example needed|s|date=October 2022}}In response, Behe and others, "ironically, given the absence of any detail in their own explanation, complain that the proffered explanations lack sufficient detail to be empirically tested".<ref name="SM 07" />

===Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics===
[[William Lane Craig]] has proposed a nominalist argument influenced by the [[philosophy of mathematics]]. This argument revolves around the fact that, by using mathematical concepts, we can discover much about the natural world. For example, Craig writes, [[Peter Higgs]], and any similar scientist, 'can sit down at his desk and, by pouring{{sic}} over mathematical equations, predict the existence of a fundamental particle which, thirty years later, after investing millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours, experimentalists are finally able to detect.' He names mathematics as the 'language of nature', and refutes two possible explanations for this. Firstly, he suggests, the idea that they are abstract entities brings about the question of their application. Secondly, he responds to the problem of whether they are merely useful fictions by suggesting that this asks why these fictions are so useful. Citing [[Eugene Wigner]] as an influence on his thought, he summarizes his argument as follows:<ref>{{Cite web |title=God and the 'Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics' - Reasonable Faith |url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/god-and-the-unreasonable-effectiveness-of-mathematics/ |website=www.reasonablefaith.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Does God Exist? - Reasonable Faith |url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/does-god-exist1/ |website=www.reasonablefaith.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=YouTube |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZmFptNGnFs |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200313161320/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZmFptNGnFs&gl=US&hl=en |archive-date=2020-03-13 |access-date=2018-12-11 |website=www.youtube.com}}</ref>

{{Poem quote|text=1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God exists.|char=|sign=|title=|source=}}

=== "Third way" proposal ===

[[University of Chicago]] [[geneticist]] [[James A. Shapiro]], writing in the ''[[Boston Review]]'', states that advancements in genetics and molecular biology, and "the growing realization that cells have molecular computing networks which process information about internal operations and about the external environment to make decisions controlling growth, movement, and differentiation", have implications for the teleological argument. Shapiro states that these "[[natural genetic engineering]]" systems, can produce radical reorganizations of the "genetic apparatus within a single cell generation".<ref name="Shapiro">{{Cite web |last=Shapiro |first=James |title=A Third Way |url=https://bostonreview.net/archives/BR22.1/shapiro.html}}</ref> Shapiro suggests what he calls a 'Third Way'; a non-creationist, non-Darwinian type of evolution:
{{blockquote|text=What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations {{omission}}<ref name="Shapiro" />}}

In his book, ''[[Evolution: A View from the 21st Century]]'', Shapiro refers to this concept of "natural genetic engineering", which he says, has proved troublesome, because many scientists feel that it supports the intelligent design argument. He suggests that "function-oriented capacities [can] be attributed to cells", even though this is "the kind of teleological thinking that scientists have been taught to avoid at all costs".<ref>[[James A. Shapiro|Shapiro, James A]]. 2011. ''Evolution: A View from the 21st Century''. Pearson Education. [https://books.google.com/books?id=T7-UgI_kgT8C&q=shapiro+creationism pp. 136–37].</ref>

===Interacting whole===

The metaphysical theologian [[Norris Clarke]] shared an argument to his fellow professors at [[Fordham University]] that was popularised by [[Peter Kreeft]] in his "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God" (1994). The argument states that as components are ordered universally in relation to one another, and are defined by these connections (for example, every two hydrogen atoms are ordered to form a compound with one oxygen atom.) Therefore, none of the parts are self-sufficient, and cannot be explained individually. However, the whole cannot be explained either because it is composed of separate beings and is not a whole. From here, three conclusions can be found: firstly, as the system cannot in any way explain itself, it requires an efficient cause. Secondly, it must be an intelligent mind because the unity transcends every part, and thus must have been conceived as an idea, because, by definition, only an idea can hold together elements without destroying or fusing their distinctness. An idea cannot exist without a creator, so there must be an intelligent mind. Thirdly, the creative mind must be transcendent, because if it were not, it would rely upon the system of space and time, despite having created it. Such an idea is absurd. As a conclusion, therefore, the universe relies upon a transcendent creative mind.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Twenty Arguments God's Existence by Peter Kreeft (& Ronald K. Tacelli) |url=http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#8 |website=www.peterkreeft.com}}</ref>