by Wesley H. Brewer
My defense of the argument will continue in the following manner. First, I will define and explain the Teleological Argument. Then I will propose, define, and explain the Anthropic Principle as support for the Teleological Argument. Lastly, I will address some of the main criticisms against the theory and comment on them.
Furthermore, my philosophical defense of the Teleological Argument is a continuation of the compilation of scientific discoveries presented by Dr. Hugh Ross.
The Teleological Argument, also called the Design Argument, can be divided into two strands. The first, also known as the eutaxidogical Design Argument, provides evidence for the existence of God by noticing the universal mathematical exactness in the laws of Nature.(Barrow, p.118) It then relates this precision to the fact that some Supreme Being, namely God, must have created the laws. The second form of the argument takes more of a logical stance on noticing the precise outcome of the laws of Nature or the correlation between many physical entities of Nature. For example, the human hand is a sophisticated structure which was made in a way to interact with other properties of Nature. The hand has purposeness or means to an end. Since the orderliness of the laws of Nature could not exist by chance alone, there must be a Creator.(Daniel, p.261) More simply, because everything seems to have been created, there must be a Creator.
The Teleological Argument, as a traditional philosophical defense for the existence of God, leaves much room for criticism due to its generality. My goal is to give the argument additional support via the Anthropic Principle, which I will later define. Because these theories are scientific, I must first reconcile the fact of using scientific evidence as a philosophical defense for the Teleological Argument.
From this point on, I will be incorporating my philosophical views based on Ross' compilation of scientific evidence.
The eutaxiological Design Argument is based strictly upon scientific evidence up to the point in which it declares that there must be a lawgiver, or a God. So what I am saying is "due to the fact that there are countless coincidences in the world," some of which I will list later, "there must be a person behind these coincidences, namely God."
I realize that we cannot invoke God just because there are many inexplicable occurrences in the universe. I also realize that there are limits to our current knowledge which restrict us from knowing how all these facts are interrelated. Therefore, I must take the stand that God is only one reason behind this purposefulness (but there are many others, some of which I will discuss later in the essay).
Consider our specific aim: to prove through science that there must be a creator. The science we have provided to describe these laws describes them very precisely. Since we are in the same frame of reference in describing these laws (meaning they are consistent from our vantage point), the fact that there must be a Creator, depending on the scientific evidence, must also be valid.
A life giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.(Ross p.120)
How does this apply as evidence for the existence of God?* Man, viewed as a physical part of nature, can only exist in a certain environment which is compatible with our needs. The factors that keep us in livable conditions are called parameters. Some of these parameters include just the right amount of surface gravity, ozone level in the atmosphere, quantity in the atmosphere, thickness of the crust of the earth, etc. There are currently forty of these parameters, which have been researched and published, which if varied as much as one trillionth of a percent would not permit the existence of life on earth. For example, if there was too much ozone in the atmosphere, the surface temperatures on earth would be too low for any existence of man. On the other hand, if there were less ozone in the atmosphere, then man could not exist because the surface temperatures would be too high and there would be too much ultraviolet radiation at the surface.(Ross, pp. 139-142)
In conclusion, our existence, as biochemical beings, on earth lies within an extremely fine line of parameters. Hence, there must (must in the sense "overwhelming likelihood") be a creator.
Some of the main proposals of what actually created the universe I shall now address.
There is a belief that life was created by chance or randomness. The probability this could happen is extremely small. As one astrophysicist put it, the practicality of life created by chance is about as possible as a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and creating a Boeing 747.(Chopra p.10)
Many believe that life was created by man. Scientifically, I cannot refute this due to the uncertainty principle.** On the other hand, a philosophical defense may be stated as a variation of the fundamental philosophical question:
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to see it or hear it, does it really fall?(Ross, p.134)
The variation so eloquently put by George Greenstein states that "the universe brought forth life in order to exist . . . that the very cosmos does not exist unless observed."(Ross, p.134) Therefore, the universe cannot exist unless man came later to observe it. Therefore, man could not have created man.
In summary, the universe, in all likelihood, must have a creator transcendent to it in order for its existence.
Nagel also states that the Teleological argument becomes no longer valid if it can be supported by a better assumption, Darwinian Biology. (Nagel, p.246) Nagel's argument is genuine in the respect to life adapting to means of survival. But what Nagel failed to realize is that Darwinism is based on the fact that the universe is infinite. (Ross, p.50) This is the wrong assumption. This refutation is an invitation of a science to science debate. A scientifically provable fact states that the universe began to exist (or the universe is finite in nature), which rules out any possibility of random creation in a finite period of time.
I have proposed a philosophical defense*** for the Teleological Argument. In doing this, several things had to be taken into consideration-- a clarification of terms, a justification of the right to use scientific evidence, in a philosophical sense, to prove a theory, a philosophical interpretation of the Anthropic Principle, and a list of what I had to assume for my defense. Then, I tested my defense against some of the main issues against the Teleological Argument. Based on the assumptions and the defense, I hope I shed some newfound light on the Teleological Argument. I recommend the reader to look past the mere implications I have made in my essay and just consider the simple logic in theism.
* I again stress that this principle cannot actually prove the existence of God but acts only as aid in determining evidence for the existence of God.
** The Heisenberg uncertainty principle basically states that a particles position and velocity cannot both be determined.
***I tried to transform the scientific evidence into philosophical evidence for the existence of God.