Zamzam Faiz

803 Words2 Pages

In “The Argument of Design,” William Paley argues that the universe has a designer. The need for an intelligent designer is portrayed through his comparison between a watch and the human eye. In this paper, I will critically evaluate William Paley’s argument by giving a brief summery of the content I will be focusing on and discuss how I believe that his arguments are not valid.
To begin with, Paley portrayed a situation of viewing a rock and asking where it came from. He answered this by concluding that it had been there forever since it is just a simple object, but it would have been different if it were a complex object, like a watch. The answer to the question would be different if the object was a watch because a watch is a complex, the parts are put together in a specific way, it has a specific purpose, thus, it must have a designer because it could not have just been there (Paley 58). This claim could be represented by this argument:
P1): A watch is a complex object
P2): Complex objects need a designer
C): Thus, a watch has a designer
The argument thus far do seem strong and valid, meaning that if the premises were true, the conclusion would also be true, but Paley uses this as an argument to portray that the universe must have an intelligent designer.
Paley beings to describe the human eye and depicts its structure. He then mentions that it differentiates from the eye of a fish because the eye a fish is rounds and helps them in water. He also mentions the eye of a bird and how it helps them see near objects because it is a necessity. He uses these facts to come to his final conclusion: the universe is so complex that there must be a powerful, intelligent designer that created it (Paley 32). Paley does mention that the...

... middle of paper ...

... is a designer does not necessary mean that it has to be perfect (Paley 30).
Thirdly, there is no designer because some parts of the watch do not have a function. Paley responds by stating that just because we are not currently aware of the function of some parts of the watch, it does not mean that they actually do not have a function (Paley 30).
Fourthly, the objection that the watch is a chance event is dismissed by Paley by stating that it being a chance is impossible to believe because no body in their right sense would think that.
The objection that there is a law or principle that disposed the watch and made it be in that form is dismissed by Paley because he indicated that the principle of order cannot create the existence of a complex object.

Works Cited

William, Paley. "The Argument from Design." PHL 110. Toronto: James Cunningham, 2013. 58-65. Print.

Open Document