Teleological argument: Encyclopedia II - Teleological argument - Objections and counter-argument

Teleological argument - Objections and counter-argument

Teleological argument - First and Second premise

The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is an example of non-sequitur logic. Life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”. This implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. In reality a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes.

Much of the time, the design claim is unexplained and unsupported, or explained by unscientific conjecture, such as irreducible complexity, and so this approach is often characterised as an argument from ignorance. Supporters of ID assume that natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, therefore both must be designed. However, different objects can have similar properties for different reasons, such as stars and light bulbs. Proponents must therefore demonstrate that only intelligent design can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid.

A designed organism would be in contradiction to evolutionary theory. As most professional biologists support the theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection, they reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence. Living organisms obey the same physical laws as inanimate objects. A range of chemical reactions could take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over very long periods of time self-replicating structures could arise and later form DNA. Thus they tend to view the teleological argument as a poor argument for the existence of a god. See also, Argument from poor design.

Teleological argument - Third premise

Some argue that even if the first and second premises are accepted, the implied designer (Y) might be an unknown force or mere demiurge, not God as God is commonly understood. It is argued in defence that the outside force through which Y came into being might then be explained as a more powerful being resulting in either an omnipotent being or infinite regression.

Critics often argue that the teleological argument would apply to the designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object. This, they say, would create the absurdity of an infinite series of designers. However, the counter-argument of an "undesigned designer," akin to Aristotle's uncaused causer, is common.

(See also Cosmological argument).

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Objections and counter-argument", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki