In 2005, eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania sued the school district over its decision to require the teaching of intelligent design alongside that of evolution [1]. In 2007, pastor Ray Comfort and actor Kirk Cameron engaged in a televised debate with an atheist group, in the hopes of disproving evolution and affirming creationism [2]. In 2008, Ben Stein released his infamous film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which suggested a global scientific conspiracy to suppress the teaching of intelligent design and propagate 'Darwinism' [3]. In addition, countless other books, documentaries, and websites have been published, all with the intent of analyzing a controversy that is nothing new.

The teleological (or design) argument states, in a very rudimentary manner, that life has the appearance of deliberate and directed design. It is often preceeded by one or more assumptions, such as 'complexity implies design' or that 'order cannot arise out of disorder'. The argument dates back centuries, to formulations in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and other philosophers, and it has maintained a steady track record of appearance throughout history and up to modern times. Today the argument is popularly known as intelligent design, because it seeks to demonstrate the existence of a superior intelligence that has left its fingerprints upon nature in the form of intricate designs and orderly structures. Yet as we will see in our examination, the teleological argument itself seems to have missed out on that intelligent design.

I. The Watchmaker

Perhaps the most well-known version of the teleological argument is the watchmaker analogy, posited by William Paley, Robert Hooke, and many others. It claims that if you were to find a watch in the middle of a forest or other landscape, you would not assume it naturally formed there, because its complexity is unlike anything found in nature, thus it must be the work of a higher intelligence: the watchmaker. Proponents of the analogy will argue that, like the watch, our universe displays evidence of complexity and must have had some grand designer behind it. Before we get to the core question of whether or not nature truly implies design, we can already see a glaring flaw in the watchmaker example.

A watch is, by definition, a man-made object and there is nothing else it can be. The concept itself includes intelligent design, because we human beings invented the watch ourselves. So the watchmaker analogy commits a logical fallacy known as begging the question, because it assumes the conclusion, that the watch is intelligently designed, in the premise of the watch object. Change the object in the analogy to something that is not a product of our own design and the conclusion becomes a little less obvious. Where did an apple come from? Where did the tree it grew on come from? Where did you come from? Where did your mother and father come from? These imply gradual and natural development, not so much the work of a designer.

Speaking of gradual and natural development, a well designed watch is rarely the exclusive invention of one watchmaker. The more sophisticated and accurate watches have gone through revisions and used techniques from various other watchmakers of different cultures. Realizing this, the watchmaker analogy appears better suited to argue in favor of polytheism than monotheism.

II. Design and Complexity

Throughout history, one of the persistent failures of the teleological argument has been its absence of a clear, agreeable definition of design. Most formulations of the argument are born out of popular but informal intuition. We humans often marvel at nature and ponder the intricate, machine-like operations of some elements, and it is almost common sense to observe our universe and think there is purposeful order and structure in it, but looks can be deceiving. When the crux of the argument is that conscious design is present in our natural universe, it is crucial to specify exactly what design is, so that we can know how to identify and examine it. In nearly all cases, proponents claim that design is evident where there is a good degree of complexity and order.

Does complexity really point to intelligent design though? Snowflakes and diamonds are very structured and complex, yet they follow entirely natural physical processes. Science does not support the assertion of complexity indicating deliberate design, because there are many instances of complexity arising out of simplicity. Complex planetary rings form by simple gravitational behaviors, and tornadoes are highly organized structures that arise from simple conditions of air flow and moisture. To counter examples like these, design advocates came up with the concept of irreducible complexity, which its originator Michael Behe defined as the following:

Behe has cited examples like the human eye and the bacterial flagellum as being irreducibly complex, but scientists wasted no time in debunking his claims. Among the countless refutations written, Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller eviscerated the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum [5], and P.Z. Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota, thoroughly illustrated how the eye could have evolved naturally, with no irreducibly complex barriers [6]. To top it all off, the very idea of irreducible complexity is itself an argument from ignorance that has no place in science. To conclude that something is so complex that it could only have been the work of an intelligent designer - that is a highly dogmatic, unscientific view which does not allow any room for alternative explanations or possibilities.

The Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins has argued that the premise of complexity implying design is one that would have to be applied to the designer himself as well. If complexity is acceptable evidence that something has been designed, then it follows that a being as complex as God would have to have been designed. Of course, the proposition of an undesigned designer is a common objection, but like Aquinas' uncaused cause, it is merely assumed to be a reasonable possibility without giving any explanation why it would be exempt from the regression of designers or causes.

Ultimately, we are faced with the same question we began with: what is design? Is it possible that the definition is somewhat elusive because the concept is simply our main differentiation between natural and man-made objects? Those things that we typically identify with design are those things not found in nature, and so to argue that nature contains elements of design may quite possibly be an impossibility. However, proponents of the teleological argument have also offered up another criterion for us to judge design by. Will it hold up any better?

III. Fine-Tuned for Life

If the strong nuclear force constant were larger, no hydrogen would form, atomic nuclei would be unstable and life would not exist. If it were smaller, no elements heavier than hydrogen would form and life would not exist [7]. Creationists are fond of using such examples to argue that life in our universe is so fine-tuned that it is evidence of intelligent design. These fine-tuning arguments are based on the anthropic principle, which states that there is a delicate balance of several conditions that have sustained life as we know it. Somehow, this improbability of life emerging under different circumstances is supposed to mean that our existence has been finely tuned by some designer, in order to allow life to flourish.

Perhaps we are the lucky ones though, that one in a million roll of the dice that got things just right. There's no telling how many other attempts there were, how many singularities and expansions that only ended up collapsing again. Maybe if you play the game enough, you get something like us. It's not a very romantic thought, I realize, but reality usually isn't that romantic anyway. Nonetheless, there is also the possibility that, given different conditions, life might have simply arisen in a different form. We only know some of the building blocks necessary for life on this planet, and we also know that life is notorious for springing up even in some of the worst, most discouraging environments. Who can really be sure that we wouldn't still be marveling at the odds if our universe had come into existence by another method and another combination of 'ingredients'?

Out of all the arguments for God, I believe this is one of the better ones, and it is most interesting to reflect on as well. Although I can see its persuasiveness, I do not find it convincing. Proponents of it will argue that our universe is fine-tuned to support life, but they may be mistakenly saying universe when they mean to say world or planet. Outside of Earth, life appears quite scarce, and the universe seems more fine-tuned for producing black holes than for sustaining life [8]. In this last section, we will examine the evidence as nature tells it, and we will see precisely how it is antithetical to both life and design.

IV. Nature Speaks for Itself

Creationists love to take Darwin's statements about the human eye out of context and assert that the organ is too complex to have evolved naturally, but they do not often seem to recognize the humor in their claims that the eye is evidence of design. For if the eye has indeed been the work of a designer, it is apparently unlikely that said designer is intelligent, given the haphazard mess of a wiring job in our eyes. Certain vestigial structures appear to have no design purpose, like the eyes of the blind mole rat or the tails on human embryos and fetuses. Then there are the dangerous vestigial structures, like wisdom teeth and the appendix, that can be harmful if not removed - what is the genius of their design?

Now I might be willing to consent to the possibility of inefficient design, or even a design that does not exalt life (like a universe designed to produce black holes, as I stated before). But it does not seem so evident that our universe is as conducive to life as intelligent design proponents would have us believe. Any living thing from this earth would instantly die if it left the atmosphere. Several elements on our own planet, like Oxygen, are poisonous or corrosive to many organisms. The history of our world also shows numerous extinctions, and it is estimated that about 99% of the species that have ever existed on the earth are now gone [for more on this, see my article: The Case Against a Caring God]. If there is a designer, life is apparently not his priority.

It is not hard to imagine design in the universe when we are looking at pictures of enchanting nebulae or ethereal forests from our laptop computers here on Earth. We often take it for granted that we have the technological luxuries that we do today. Our species has suffered through many generations of avoiding predators, fighting off diseases, adjusting to different climates, and other struggles, so that we can have the comfortable lives we currently enjoy. Now that we have reached the top of the food chain and surmounted all other lifeforms in intelligence, we look at our surroundings and declare ourselves as part of some great design plan. A little egotistical perhaps, but we have come a long way... from a distant past in which we might not have figured ourselves to be such central figures in the design of the universe.

Tempting as it may be to marvel over nature and her ways, we must remember that we are biased observers. The more we explore space, the more we discover how insignificant and alone we really are on this little planet. Many of us would like to have some sense of a greater meaning in the midst of all this, or at least like to know that we will be remembered when we are gone. Sadly, some people refuse to deal with reality as it is, and so they accept or invent comforting myths to take their minds off the startling truth of uncertainty. However, I firmly believe that abandoning the vain idolization of cosmic purpose is a wonderful step toward a greater appreciation of the life and the purpose that we do have here on Earth, among our friends and family.

1. Anonymous. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Retrieved Jan. 8, 2009.
2. Anonymous. Kirk Cameron - Television debate. Retrieved Jan. 8, 2009.
3. Anonymous. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Retrieved Jan. 8, 2009.
4. Behe, M. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. (p. 39) Free Press.
5. Miller, K. (2004) The Flagellum Unspun. Retrieved Jan. 8, 2009.
6. Myers, P.Z. (2007) Pharyngula: Evolution of vertebrate eyes. Retrieved Jan. 8, 2009.
7. Ross, H. (1993) The Creator and the Cosmos. NavPress.
8. Cain, F. (2006) Finding All the Black Holes. Retrieved Jan. 8, 2009.
9. Dawkins, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. (p. 93) W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
10. Russell, B. (1957) Why I Am Not a Christian. (p. 54) New York: Simon & Schuster.