Does the argument have value? Strengths Firstly the argument has great appeal. The universe and all of it’s beauty continue to amaze and perplex us. It seems quite right therefore that the DA has continued to have attention paid to it in the contemporary period. Consider the quotation from the great German philosopher and theologian Immanuel Kant in ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’ : “This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest, and the most accordant with the common reason of mankind”. (18th C). The premises are easy to understand. Many recognise them as valid (even if they are atheists). Even the great critic David Hume said: ‘A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes everywhere the most careless, the most stupid thinker’. Indeed it is an posteriori argument – draws upon experience and it’s analogical form means that we can relate to is in some way. Poets and hymn writers all praise the ‘craftsmanship of nature’. Scientific explanations of the universe could be compatible with the DA: - The anthropic principle suggests the DA need not reject the principles of evolution. I - Indeed the Big band and evolutionary theory can be seen as the means by which the creator performs his work. - Given the challenges posed by Darwin, Archbishop Temple (late 19th c) claimed: “The doctrine of evolution leaves the argument for an intelligent Creator and Governor of the earth stronger than it was before”. Furthermore, Richard Swinburne stated– “ the very success of science in showing us how deeply ordered the natural world is provides strong grounds for believing that there is an even deeper cause of that order”.

Teleological Argument- criticisms David Hume (1711-1776) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume set out 2 versions of the design argument. Hume’s first argument To speak of design is to imply a designer. Great design implies a great designer. There is great design in the world, so … There must be a great designer.

This version relies on analogy (universe – watch) This version relies on analogy (universe – watch). Illogical Leap – too unalike to withstand comparison. Hume argued that it in fact implies a superhuman, anthropomorphic concept of God, which is very limited and inconsistent. The world is imperfect and flawed, and as such could suggest an imperfect and flawed creator: The design of the ‘wobbly’ Millennium Bridge across the Thames is argued to suggest an incompetent design team. The design of the world , with all its arbitrary suffering, is argued to suggest an incompetent creator. Surely, if order needs explaining so does the being responsible??? Morally negative evidence – supposed to be a posteriori and ignores suffering which world full of.

Hume’s second argument Paley says if look - world is ordered. This is either because of chance or because of design. It is entirely possible that the world did come about by chance.

Hume was arguing that if a person can see order and purpose in the universe, all that this can legitimately lead to is the conclusion that there is order and purpose in the universe (we impose patterns of order where none exist). Ancient Greek philosophers like Democritus and Epicurus in their Atomic Theory – the order we see is part of this randomness. Modern Physics (chaos theory) confirms the world is chaotic and unpredictable. In sharp contrast to Paley universe not a great mechanical object acting in a law like and purposeful way.

Further there is nothing in the argument to suppose that there is only one creator – if many builders collaborate to build a house, why not many Gods? Argument 4 Polytheism. Hume went on to support the idea of natural selection – he claimed that is highly plausible that adaptations made by animals to survive may be the result of random adaptations, rather than the agency of an intelligent designer.

Furthermore, even if something has a purpose/order does not follow it entails design and a designer – never mind a divine one at that! To conclude that there is a God behind this presumed order would be, in Mackie’s word, ‘gratuitous’. Hume argued that there is no need to make that step from ordered universe to God. That point poses a crucial if not insuperable problem to the argument from design.

Hume argued that a more accurate analogy would be to compare the world with a carrot – the ‘mark’ of design discerned in the world could be due to ‘generation’, ‘self-regulation’ and ‘growth’ rather than to design. Darwin (1809-1882) supported this criticism with his work on natural selection.

J. S. Mill (1806- 1873) In Nature and the Utility Religion (1874) Mill argues that nature is ‘guilty’ of serious crimes for which she goes unpunished. The various ‘atrocities’ through which both humans and animals suffer would not go unpunished if they were the result of Human agency. ‘Nearly all the things for which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature’s everyday performances’. Mill therefore concludes that the world cannot be ordered, and he rejects the idea that it is the result of intelligent design