Complexity does not imply design
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. It is argued that this is
non-sequitur logic. Life or objects are described as "orderly" or "ordered", which implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. However, in reality, there are examples of
systems that are non-random or ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes, for example
diamonds or
snowflakes.
The design claim is often attacked as an
argument from ignorance, since it is often unexplained or unsupported, or explained by unscientific conjecture. Supporters of intelligent design 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, on the face of it, 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. This has in fact been demonstrated artificially via the
Avida program, which can construct complex programs without being given any design (similar programs have had similar results with building machines). Thus biologists commonly view the design argument as an unimpressive argument for the existence of a god.
See also: Argument from poor design
Advocates of design have responded to this objection by pointing out that information theory demonstrates that DNA is a "code," and is therefore not analogous structurally to a snowflake or crystal as the written pages of a book would not be. They also claim that no natural process has ever created a code, and that explanations put forward of the origins of DNA or gradual change are often couched in vague terms such as, for example simply "arising" or "forming" without offering any explanation as to how the thing arose or formed, and that this is unscientific.[
citation needed] This argument, however, takes liberties with the definition of "code" and as such, is often considered to be an example of the logical error of
equivocation. It may also be the error of reification; i.e., of treating a linguistic metaphor or analogy such as "code" as a real object or state. And it is a fallacy of
petitio principii (begging the question), since it assumes the very thing that it concludes: that DNA is not a consequence of a natural process (if it is, then of course it is false that "no natural process has ever created a code"). And it is
argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance), as it concludes from the lack of a natural explanation for the origin of DNA that there is none, misplacing the burden of proof, which rests with the party who makes the claim (of supernatural origin, in this case).
[edit] Does not prove the existence of God
Voltaire said that, at best, the teleological argument could only indicate the existence of a powerful, but not necessarily all-powerful or all-knowing, intelligence.
Another argument states that even if the argument from design proved the existence of a powerful intelligent designer, it would not prove that the designer is God.
Voltaire observed:
[F]rom this one argument, I cannot conclude anything more, except that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has prepared and shaped matter with dexterity; I cannot conclude from this argument alone that this being has made the matter out of nothing or that he is infinite in any sense [i.e. that he is God].
[1]
It has also been pointed out that the argument relies on a cultural context of monotheism when it claims to prove the existence of a single, supreme creator Being. In the context of a polytheistic culture, however, the argument could just as easily be used to argue for the existence of gods (in the plural) — a group of intelligent supernatural designers. In
David Hume's
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the character Philo argued, amidst other counterarguments to the teleological argument, that there "could have been a committee of deities."
[edit] Contradictory premises lead to an infinite regress
Critics such as
Richard Dawkins often argue that the teleological argument would in turn apply to the proposed designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object (in Dawkins' words, "The Ultimate 747", a reference to the probability of a windstorm sweeping through a junkyard and constructing a
747). 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. This argument, however, is incomplete as it does not indicate why the designer can be undesigned but the universe cannot.
[edit] Assertion of inconsistencies in the 'Design' of the Universe
Whilst the Universe can at first seem be purposeful and ordered, it has been asserted that upon closer inspection its true function becomes questionable. Some scientists such as
Richard Dawkins, a high-profile advocate of atheism, reject the claim that the Universe serves any actual function, claiming that the Universe merely 'mimics' purpose. For example, predators appear perfectly 'designed' to catch their prey, whilst their prey seem equally well 'designed' to evade them. Likewise, apparent inconsistencies in the design of organisms have been brought to attention by critics of the teleological argument. Some use such arguments to point towards natural selection as a 'blind' biological designer, as opposed to God.[
citation needed]
Proponents of teleology have argued against this objection on various grounds. For example,
William A. Dembski says that such arguments are based upon presumptions about what a designer would or would not do, and so constitute a "theological rather than scientific claim." "Not knowing the designer," he continues, they "are in no position to say whether the designer proposed a faulty compromise among those [design] objectives." (Dembski 2004, pp. 58-9)
Additionally, the claim of an apparent inconsistency between the "design" of predators and prey ignores the balance of the ecosystem. Dembski counters, "In criticizing design, [critics] tend to place premium on functionalities of individual organisms and see design as optimal to the degree that those individual functionalities are maximized. But higher-order designs of entire ecosystems might require lower-order designs of individual organisms." (Dembski, 2004, p. 61)
[edit] Noncoherence
George H. Smith, in his book
Atheism: The Case Against God, points out what he considers to be a fatal flaw in the argument from design
Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)