In Defense of the Divine Architecture

submitted 09/25/06 as Reaction Paper for Philo 104: Philosophy of Religion
************************************************

The teleological argument, as Ernest Nagel wrote in The Case for Atheism, “is based on what purports to be empirical evidence,” which makes it different in character from the cosmological and ontological arguments. From the intricate natural systems we see around us and even ­in us, the argument from design claims that the complex existence must’ve been created by a divine architect, not by random chance. The argument is popularly compared with the case of a found watch, whose finder assumes that the watch with its elaborate mechanism was made by someone intelligent and much less likely by arbitrariness.

Ernest Nagel criticized the teleological argument with two counterarguments. The first one asserts that the idea ‘watch is to watchmaker; world is to world maker’ is a faulty analogy. Accordingly, the watch is not similar to the “innumerable animate and inanimate systems with which we are familiar.” Furthermore, the way the parents ‘make’ their offspring is not the same with how the watchmaker makes a watch. The author’s second counterargument claims to altogether crush the teleological argument because the rival hypothesis, the Darwinian Theory, is a “better supported assumption.” It “explains the diversity of biological species in terms of chance variations in the structure of organisms, and of a mechanism of selection which retains those variant forms that possess some advantages for survival.”

As a ‘follower’ of the teleological argument, I am relieved that I still haven’t encountered a very good and striking criticism to it even after reading Nagel’s article. It is now my turn to lay down my counterarguments for each of his counterarguments.

First, the watch and watchmaker may not be exactly the same with the world and world maker. However, they are proportionally similar. Yes, the overwhelmingly intricate universe is very much greater than even all the watches there are. It is because the world maker or intelligent designer is also very much greater than any watchmaker. This world maker must even be the greatest since He made the universe. It even supports the nature of the Creator. Although we can comprehend certain mechanisms of existence, such as our bodily functions, we cannot grasp the universe as a whole. It is unfathomable and mysterious, and so is its architect and maker. On the issue on the dissimilarity between parents making babies and watchmakers making watches, I don’t even know why mating came up in his arguments. The teleological argument compares the watchmaker with the world maker, not a baby maker. Moreover, in that analogy, the method of creation is not the concern; it is the purpose or cause of the creation. It suggests that the watch’s existence is only possible with a purposing will, and so is the universe’s existence. How it is created is not that essential.

Second, the Theory of Evolution only explains the existence of animate systems. How about the inanimate systems? How is the system of seasons or the organized planetary movements possible? Did they also adapt to the “mechanisms of selection?” No, because only living creatures can adapt. Besides, these inanimate systems are the mechanisms of selection. The system of seasons, for instance, forces the bears to hibernate during winter and the ants to gather and store as much food as they can during summer. Those that cannot cope would have to perish. It seems that nature has its laws. But since nature is inanimate, it cannot decree on its own. Only something similar to a purposing mind can explain the inanimate structures in existence. The Darwinian Theory is still plausible. But it must be integrated with the teleological argument to support it thoroughly. Perhaps the one who not only created but also governs the universe ‘designed’ the inanimate systems from where the animate systems were adapted and formed. And since Darwin cannot determine the source of all evolving organisms, the teleological argument patches the leak by offering the idea that only a divine architect and creator can create the very first organism from where all evolution sprang from.