The Teleological Argument

Paper Summary:

This paper critically analyzes the teleological argument, which is an argument based on the idea that the universe is too complicated to have been created by accident and so must have had a creator. The paper describes the basis for this argument and then presents the problems that are inherent in it and concludes that the argument is flawed.

From the Paper:

"A second problem with the teleological argument is based on the idea that design and purpose are linked. In Natural Theology, William Paley used the example of a watch to show how design and purpose are linked. He stated that a watch serves a specific purpose and has been designed with that purpose in mind. This shows intelligent design. This analogy is then applied to life and the universe and used to conclude that life must have been designed intelligently since everything created serves a purpose. Paley made this argument by stating that "every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation." The problem with this argument is that there is no certainty that things are intentionally created with a certain purpose. In the case of a watch, it is created for the purpose of creating time. However, this is not necessarily true of the creations of the universe. Consider a simple example such as the creation of a tomato. The teleological argument would state that because a tomato is used for food, it must have been created for the purpose of providing others with a food source. However, it could also be said that a tomato is used as a food source because it is good to eat. This second view is based on the idea that created items are used for the purpose to which they are suited. This does not mean that they had to be designed for this purpose and so intelligent design is not necessary. Instead, one could argue that whatever is accidentally created is used for the purpose to which it is suited. In this way, the fact that something serves a purpose is not proof that it was designed for that purpose and so intelligent design is not a certainty."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Dawkins, R. (2004). Who owns the argument from improbability? Free Enquiry 24.6: 11-12.
• Ospovat, D. (1995). The development of Darwin's theory : Natural history, natural theology, and natural selection. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Paley, W. (2005). Natural theology. Landisville, PA: Coachwhip Publications.

More papers on The Teleological Argument:

• Essay # 64396 : "The Teleological Argument"
• Research Paper # 53151 : "The Philosophy of the Existence of God"
• Analytical Essay # 18073 : "On the Nature of the Supreme Deity - Descartes and Hume"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: