Teleological argument

=== 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" />