The Teleological Argument

There are many plain evidences for the existence of God. The primary question we should ask ourselves is NOT, “is there convincing evidence for the existence of God?”. The question we should ask is, “if the evidence points to God, am I willing to accept it?”. If we don’t WANT there to be a God, then we will reject even the most obvious evidence so that we can believe what we want. That is why it is crucial that when considering the existence of God, we must be willing to honestly examine all the available evidence and be willing to follow that evidence wherever it leads.
There is a wide variety of logical arguments and evidences that point to the existence of God. The ironclad case for the existence of God lies in all of these evidences taken together as a whole. Some of the most popular are the teleological, cosmological, anthropological and ontological arguments. There are also Biblical, historical, and archeological testimonies as well as many other evidences that may or may not fall under one of the above categories.
However, the individual arguments are also powerful, and in this writing I will give a brief presentation of the teleological argument. Stated simply, this argument says that the natural world is made up of interdependent complex designs that require a predetermined purpose and therefore an intelligent designer. In other words, if we can understand that our universe has design, then this means there must be a designer. We Christians acknowledge that this designer is the God of the Bible.
There are an unlimited number of simple and complex examples of design in the universe. In the human body, for example, the inner ear is designed with a triple semicircular canal which allows us to have the necessary balance to walk upright. Tiny hair cells are caused to wiggle producing the electrical signal of sound 20,000 times per second. There is even a tiny spring that causes a type of door to be opened and closed to release these electrical signals to the brain.
The human liver performs over 500 functions and is able to store vitamins, detoxify poisons, stabilize blood sugar and more. Each part of the body has important functions for which it was designed. If these critical body parts were not designed and set in motion at particular times we could not live. This is evidence of design, not chemical evolution.
The British philosopher and clergyman, William Paley (1743-1805), was credited with first introducing the argument of design to the public. Philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) and others have over the years attempted to challenge this argument citing examples of “less than perfect” design, coupled with the problem of the existence of evil, suffering, disease and death. How could this reveal a perfect Designer? One ridiculously obvious answer is that even a seemingly imperfect design, is still by definition a design which still requires a designer. Additionally, Christians acknowledge that that design in nature is just one dimension of theology. Imperfection and suffering result from the curse occurring subsequent to creation. The cure for the effects of sin, through redemption alone, shows God’s eternal plan perfectly executed in the greatest way possible.
Let’s say the world’s greatest genius were to build his children a “perfect” bicycle. Then he told them that if they take care of it in the way he has instructed, it will last their whole lives. If the children then, in their free will, misuse and abuse it, the problems that arise are not due to the imperfect design, but in the fact that it was not used properly. The challenge of flawed or unstable design poses no logical problem whatsoever to the Christian faith. On the contrary, they are additional evidences and serve to strength faith in the revealed Word of God.
To be sure, sound arguments have an uncanny way of sticking around and increasing in strength. In the fields of classical cosmology, physics and astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and biochemistry, discoveries have repeatedly shown that the existence of life on Earth depends upon a very delicate balance of physical and cosmological quantities, such that were any one of these quantities to be slightly altered, the balance would be destroyed and life would not exist. This has been summarized in the Anthropic Principle, which states that the universe has too many precise parameters critical to the existence of life to be attributed to chance, and therefore it must be carefully designed for the well-being of mankind.
For example, if the nuclear force between protons and neutrons were weaker, carbon and iron would disintegrate and there could be no life. If it were 2% stronger all the hydrogen would have been consumed long ago, which obviously means no water and no life.
The present temperature of space requires that the expansion rate at the birth of the universe be fine-tuned in different directions to within one part followed by 40 zeroes. For the universe to exist, the temperature of all space had to be the same and within this fraction. Not to mention that if the gravitational force were just a little weaker or stronger the stability of the atom would be impossible and therefore there could be no life.
Much more could be said, but let’s be honest, these examples are not necessary because we can recognize intricate design. I am typing on a computer, and I know this computer did not randomly create itself. If just one small component is missing then it will not work. Someone thoughtfully provided the design, the hardware and the software that allow me to type this.
Consider the statement made by Max Planck (1858-1947), Nobel Prize winner and founder of modern physics, "According to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature, a certain order prevails--one independent of the human mind . . . this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe to which both man and nature are subservient". It is interesting that scientists must operate under certain assumptions regarding order and functionality. Even those like Richard Dawkins, who do not believe in a designer, acknowledge the “appearance” of design.
To claim that things appear to be designed but in fact are not is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved”. Can you imagine being a student in his class and Dr. Crick saying, “repeat after me: ‘it was not designed, it was not designed, it was not designed’”. Why would you have to do that? Because it looks designed! Can you imagine a forensic investigator or an insurance representative investigating the scene of a crime, and saying, “boy this sure looks like arson to me, but we can’t accept that conclusion”, or “it sure looks like this person was murdered, but we can’t accept that, it has to be an accident”. We must ask ourselves which is a more intellectually honest, to disregard the overwhelming evidence of design as our flawed perspective or to acknowledge that it is in fact designed.
If nature were not the ordered product of a rational mind, we would not be able to use our rational methodologies to make sense of it. If the universe were really random and chaotic, then we would have no way to study it. Randomness by its nature would result in something unintelligible. But the universe IS intelligible. It is ordered and full of laws that we can follow and get predictable results.
In April of this year, the world’s most famous atheist, Anthony Flew, died. Well before Dawkins began attacking religion, Flew was the preeminent spokes person for unbelief. He is now the most famous convert to belief in God. When asked what factors were decisive in this change, he is quoted as stating, “there were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source”.
If a person’s worldview starts with “God does not exist”, then even if the evidence leads back to God the person will cut it off immediately or attack it aggressively. He may say that he is willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but if it leads to God he will ignore it or deny it or seek out any possible logical (or illogical) explanation. Why is it that during a soccer match when there is a contested goal, thousands of fans from the offensive team are convinced it was a goal, and thousands of those supporting the defensive team are convinced it was not? Who is right? The ones who are the most honest with the evidence and are able to set aside their bias. We know some people will never do this. In the creation vs. evolution debate both sides start with certain assumptions and both interpret their data within those assumptions. Both have the tendency to consider only those hypotheses that are in keeping with their own preconceived ideas (and in some cases desires). The difference is that some will allow for the possibility of an intelligent designer, and some will not.
For those who believe in God, there is nothing to fear from science. In our era the scientific data is pouring in, and the more it does the more there is a deep troubling sense among honest evolutionists that there is more than just randomness and something from nothing. Even Darwin, in a letter to Asa Grey, wrote, “I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have gotten over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick”. Why? Because it declares the glory of a creator. All we have to do is look. It is plain to us.
There will always be those who reject this evidence for design and its implication, but this argument will not go away. It’s important to realize, regardless of any sarcasm, ridicule or claim to the intellectual high ground, that the evidence will continue to speak for itself. The apostle Paul wrote, “for since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NIV). We understand when something has evident design. We are able to live and function because this is a designed universe. And since there is design, there must be a designer.