Summary Of The Teleological Argument

In Paley’s The Teleological Argument, the author attempts to prove the existence of God through the analogy of a watch. If a person were to stumble upon a watch and ponder its existence, that person couldn’t fathom the possibility of the watch having no creator, with all of its intricate design and complexities. Said person would come to the conclusion that this watch was made for the purpose of telling time by its maker. This analogy stands true for when that same person contemplates the existence of God and how and why animals, humans, trees, etc. are here on earth. It is obvious that humans are complex creatures with an apparent design, and because of this the only possibility of their creation is through that of creation and intelligent

design rather than evolution.

According to Paley, the inventions of the human race are products of intelligent design to which were made for a purpose; as in the analogy, the watch was a creation capable of telling the time of day, and so that was its purpose. In his argument, human devices are a reflection of the universe, therefore making it likely that the universe has a purpose defined by its intelligent design, but because of its vast complexities and enormous features in comparison to humans and their creations, there must be a dominant and infinitely intelligent designer who made the universe itself, that creator being God. This inherently makes William Paley’s conclusion that God exists.

From Paley’s argument there are 8 objections that are addressed. One of which, objection VIII, touches on the idea that no one knows anything about the matter at hand. In a reflection of Paley’s thoughts on this subject, just by observing the components of a watch, or rather the universe, a person can know the design. This means that because there is no proof against it, then anything to the contrary doesn’t apply.

Objection V states that the reasons behind the existence of the watch, i.e. the universe, is based upon a law or principle that creates the initial disposition of the watch, i.e. the universe. In Paley’s response he claims that in order for there to be a law or principle that there would have to be an enforcer of said laws or principles. Thus proving that there is a God. At another end of his defense, in objection II the argument claims that because the parts of a watch, i.e. the universe, do not function in a manner deemed flawless, the evidence of a maker is moot. Paley argues that just because an item isn’t perfect doesn’t prove that the object itself doesn’t have a design leading into the third objection stating that there are some parts of the watch which have no function, therefore making it a product of no design. To counter this, Paley claims that there is no reason for disbelief in the design of something simply because one does not know, or maybe doesn’t understand the function of every contributing feature of said object. In defense of Paley’s counter, a person could use the human body as a template for this theory. If one were to ask another what the gallbladder was used for many wouldn’t have the slightest clue. The gallbladder itself seems useless on paper, but in reality its function is to store bile dispensed from the liver. What good is that? Who knows, but without it I’m sure that the human race would suffer or worse die.
This leads to my opinions on the matter.

Although Paley makes a compelling argument, I must state that I disagree with his conclusion. It is in my own opinion that even though the natural reaction from the human brain to new information is to try to make sense of it and categorize that information, I do not believe that there has to be an all-powerful, infinite god that created all that I see before me. I trust in evolution and in the power of the human intellectual capabilities to give us the technology and discoveries we have today. Perhaps I may not have known who John Montagu, fourth Earl of Sandwich, was, I do know that I can credit the sandwich to him and not to a god that made it possible for him to create the sandwich. Yes there is a master behind every invention of man and animal, but that doesn’t mean that there is a master behind the invention of man and animal. Which leads me to my next point that humans didn’t evolve from primates. As a matter of fact, I believe we did evolve from primates as a chance event, which touches on Paley’s response to the fourth objection, stating that a design cannot be a result of chance. It has been proven that human beings and primates, chimps in particular, have a 96% match in our genetic blueprint, making chimps our closest living relative. Darwin himself supported the idea of evolution through natural selection, which states that a variety of traits that are inherited through offspring, but not all traits are passed on to future

generations, since not every product or reproduction survives long enough to procreate, thus weening out the weaker traits and promoting the stronger traits for a species survival. Environmental factors as well as predatory factors play a large part in the promotion and extinction of trait variation. In short this theory defines adaption. This doesn’t happen over a short span of time though; it takes thousands of years for evolution through natural selection to occur. A good example of this lies within the human race and the variation of skin color amongst human beings. In populations who inhabit areas located closer to the equator, skin tones are much darker, which protects the population from skin cancer, among other illnesses or deficiencies, whereas people who live in areas of the world that are closer to either of the poles have lighter skin, allowing them to be able to absorb more vitamin D which assists in calcium absorption. In areas closer to the poles that suns range of UV radiation is weaker, therefore the melanin and darker pigment isn’t as necessary for protection against the UV radiation.